Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Inward Investment

Mr. Waterson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals she has to encourage inward investment. [655]

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to encourage inward investment into the United Kingdom. [668]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Inward investment is important not only for the jobs that it brings to Britain, but for the benefit that it brings to local economies.
The Department's invest in Britain bureau will promote the United Kingdom for mobile international investment to ensure that we are the number one location in Europe for investment from countries such as Japan, the United States and Korea. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was able to contribute personally to those efforts when she visited Japan last week.

Mr. Waterson: I warmly welcome the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities at the Dispatch Box. Did she see the report of The Economist intelligence unit a few days ago which concluded that Britain had the second most favourable business environment in the world, second only to Hong Kong? Does she consider that our chances of reaching the No. 1 slot in that league table will be enhanced by having the national minimum wage, the windfall tax and signing the social chapter?

Mrs. Roche: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind and courteous words. We want to promote Britain as the investment centre of the world. To do that, we need a highly skilled and highly motivated work force. All the measures that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned will give us just that.

Mr. Fabricant: I, too, welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box. As she will be aware, about 18 per cent.

of manufacturing arises from inward investment in this country. What is her view of the recent Treasury projection—

Mr. Mackinlay: The Tories are bunching up for the camera to try to make it look as though there are more of them.

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
What is the Minister's view of the recent Treasury projection that a million people will be thrown on the dole if the minimum wage is set around £4? Does she agree with that projection? A simple yes or no will do.

Mrs. Roche: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words.
The Government have always made it clear that the minimum wage would be set at a level the country can afford, that the Low Pay Commission will consult employers as well as employees and that the employers' side of the discussions will be made up of small and large businesses. To be competitive in the modern world, we need a motivated work force. We aim to ensure that we have just that.

Mr. Gunnell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her place on the Front Bench—indeed, I congratulate the whole team. We have a high-quality team answering trade and industry questions.
Does my hon. Friend agree that having a Government who are united on Europe will help us in terms of inward investment? Have not the divisions in the Tory party over Europe made it much more difficult to attract inward investors to Britain? Is it not good news for inward investment that we now have a Labour Government who are convinced that they will put Britain back at the heart of Europe?

Mrs. Roche: I thank my hon. Friend, and I agree with him. One reason why we attract inward investment to this country is our membership of the European Union and the influence that we can bring to bear. The divisions in the last Administration, who put party before country, were extremely unhelpful to our inward investment. The new Government's first commitment will be to the country, not the party.

Dr. Godman: May I point out to my hon. Friend that there is a long history of inward investment in my constituency? It was the late Hector McNeil, Labour Member for Greenock, who persuaded IBM to come to Spango valley more than 40 years ago. Will my hon. Friend ensure that, whenever possible, those from abroad who are seeking to invest in our constituencies set up research and development centres, which are so important? We do not want just assembly units.

Mrs. Roche: I absolutely agree. Inward investment is important and needs to be taken seriously because of its benefits to local industries and economies. That is why this Government will actively encourage supply chains, working with local authorities and others to get the very best for our home-grown industries from the inward investment that we hope to attract.

Monopolies and Mergers Policy

Mr. John M. Taylor: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the guiding principles that the Government will follow in superintending monopolies and mergers policy. [656]

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Government are committed to effective and fair competition. In exercising my statutory responsibilities, I shall consider each case on its merits. My policy will be to make merger references primarily on competition grounds.
On the wider question of reform, the Government will be introducing a new competition Bill this autumn, adopting a tough prohibitive approach to deter anti-competitive practices and abuse of market power.

Mr. Taylor: I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on her appointment. May I ask her to explain why the Government have already done two U-turns—one on the proposal to merge the Office of Fair Trading with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the other on the burden of proof in takeover cases? She has been quoted as saying—she has said it again today—that competition grounds will be at the heart of her policy. Will she confirm that, and remark its fidelity to the proposals first set out by Lord Tebbit?

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. If I recall correctly, it has been the practice of successive Governments of all political shades for 40 years or so to have competition policy handled in the way that I have described.
As for two U-turns, either the hon. Gentleman's researchers have not been assiduous enough, or he has not read our documents with sufficient care. I can assure him that no U-turn is involved. If he reads the policy document that we issued long before the election, he will discover that while these issues were identified as the subject of people's concern, and while proposals had been made to effect the sort of changes described, there was no commitment to them whatever. I can tell the hon. Gentleman in the utmost confidence that Lord Borrie's view of the proposals chimes absolutely with my own.

Mr. Doran: I welcome my right hon. Friend most warmly to her new position. I know that she would not want to comment on individual cases, but is she aware of the proposed merger between Grampian Television and Scottish Television—a proposal that is opposed by most sections of opinion in the north of Scotland? When considering new legislation, can she assure me that current grounds for referral to the MMC will not be weakened in any way?

Mrs. Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He is right to say that I cannot comment on individual cases. I hope, however, that it will already be apparent—certainly from what we have said about the new legislation that we intend to produce—that, far from weakening the approach to competition issues, we intend substantially to strengthen the position adopted by the previous Government.

Mr. Harvey: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Lady on her appointment, and I welcome the flexibility that she

is displaying on this matter. If competition is to remain the central consideration, however, does she intend to offer further guidance on any other factors to which she will attach priority as she considers each and every case on its merits? Does she not see a danger of merger mania taking off again as companies try her on to find out what is guiding her in these deliberations?

Mrs. Beckett: I see no evidence that that will happen, although I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I have sought to head off any attempts to discern policy by testing me out by making the simple, clear statement to a business audience yesterday that, on competition policy as on other things, there is no need for people to waste their time on close textual analysis: I say what I mean and I mean what I say.

European Union

Dr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures Her Majesty's Government intend to take to improve (a) the competitiveness and (b) the trading position of British companies within the European Union. [657]

Mrs. Beckett: The Government will work in partnership with business to improve the country's competitiveness and trading position. For instance, during our presidency of the European Union next year we intend to complete the single market. That will be particularly important in areas such as telecommunications, air travel and financial services, where there are great opportunities for British business which will stimulate competition and give the customer a better deal. We will also take steps to improve the effectiveness of Government support for exporters.

Dr. Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment. Does she accept that the increase in the value of the pound—16.5 per cent. since last August, taking us back almost to pre-black-Wednesday levels—poses a threat to our competitiveness?

Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend knows, concern has been expressed about some of those issues, but he also knows that the root of competitiveness and long-term prosperity for Britain is the cultivation of economic stability. Lack of economic stability was a sharp feature of the previous Government's record. We believe that actions taken recently by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will contribute to stability, which in turn will contribute to an overall competitive position—and that includes exchange rate issues.

Mr. Wilkinson: In greeting the right hon. Lady in her new position at the Dispatch Box, may I ask her how the adoption of the social chapter, the imposition on British companies of the provisions of an employment chapter from Brussels, and the idea that Brussels should have the power to impose sanctions on British companies which do not obey the diktats of Brussels, can possibly improve the competitiveness of British companies in the European Union and world markets and improve employment possibilities in British firms?

Mrs. Beckett: As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware, we very much take the view that future


competitiveness and future success for Britain lie in encouraging quality. The Government's view is that the attitude that we adopt to issues such as the social chapter and to any proposals for an employment chapter will be governed by what we believe to be in the interests of Britain's competitiveness. We believe that quality and skills are very much at the heart of that.

Former Coal Mining Areas

Mr. Skinner: To ask the President of the Board ofTrade what measures she has for creating jobs in ex-coalfield areas with excessively high unemployment; and if she will make a statement. [658]

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. John Battle): The legacy of pit closures has scarred whole communities and much work still needs to be done because unemployment is still unacceptably high in those communities. That should not be forgotten as we pull together programmes and policies to assist.

Mr. Skinner: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new job. When he tours the coalfields—Bolsover and many others—as I expect he will, he will not only see the legacy of 18 years of Tory industrial policy: he will see the social fabric of once-proud mining communities almost broken down. Does he agree that the slap-happy policies of market forces will not solve those problems and find work for those communities? Intervention and planning are needed, not only by the Department of Trade and Industry but by others in the Government, to provide much-needed work for those communities. Market forces have not worked for 18 years, and they never will: we want a fresh start.

Mr. Battle: I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. I shall be glad to visit his constituency and others where communities have been badly scarred by Conservative Government policies. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There is need for co-ordination—for joined-up thinking between Departments—to ensure that the range of regeneration measures are targeted on those communities which need them most. I hope that the Department of Trade and Industry may act as catalysts in this matter to ensure that those communities which are most in need get that help.

Mr. Evans: What will the Minister say to unemployed people in Bolsover and in other ex-coalfield areas about the slap-happy dogma that the Labour party intend to introduce, with such things as the social chapter, the minimum wage and the introduction of a 48-hour directive? Does he really believe that the increased unemployment in those areas that will result from the introduction of those policies is a price worth paying?

Mr. Battle: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's slap-happy language. From 1984, the Conservative Government presided over the loss of 50,000 jobs in the coal industry, and more than 40 mines were closed in the area represented in part by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Perhaps the former President of the Board of Trade—the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who shut the pits without proper economic restructuring packages—should be answering

these questions, although I am glad, and I believe that most of the country is glad, that he is no longer in a position to do so.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on his elevation to the Government Front Bench. Will he give me and other Members who represent coal mining areas a guarantee that the Government will pursue in Europe the Rechar money that is still available? Will he ensure that that money, along with the rest of Government subsidies, goes in the direction that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has spoken about?

Mr. Battle: The answer to my hon. Friend is yes. It is part of that co-ordination to ensure that policies are put together, and that includes calling on European programmes. I am happy to say that I shall take forward that approach.

Trade Unions

Mr. Fallon: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to introduce new rights of statutory recognition for trade unions. [659]

Madam Speaker: Mr. McCartney.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I still do not quite believe that we—Labour—are on the Government Benches. I am here, however, and I am enjoying it.
The Government will introduce legislation establishing a right to union recognition where a majority of a relevant work force vote in a ballot for a union to represent them. We shall consult fully on the most effective means of introducing this right.

Mr. Fallon: We can hardly believe that the hon. Gentleman is on the Government Front Bench, either. Nevertheless, I congratulate him on his appointment.
Given the Secretary of State's desire for a closer partnership with business, will the Minister name one business organisation that is in favour of wider rights of union recognition?

Mr. McCartney: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on returning to this place. My constituents did not feel short-changed in booting him out. I welcome him back.
The position is simple: the Government believe in having a partnership with industry, a right to join a trade union and for that union to be recognised if a majority of the work force expresses the wish in a secret ballot for that to be the position. That is why we are consulting. It is clear that industry wants a fresh start. It wants a Government who are for partnership, who want to work with it in motivating the work force and working generally in a way that improves competitiveness in British industry.
I am confident that when we have finished the consultation process and bring forward legislation we shall have the wholehearted support of trade unions and industry generally on the basis that we are a Government


who offer fairness and not favours—unlike the previous Government, who always wanted favours for themselves while denying fairness to others.

Mrs. Mahon: I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. I am sure that he will undertake his responsibilities extremely well.
What message would my hon. Friend send to a company in my constituency, named Wescol, which has recently sacked the night shift for asking for recognition? Surely that is not the sort of partnership that we want.

Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for her supplementary question, which illustrates clearly why it is important to provide a right for individuals to join a union and for that organisation to represent their interests. That is why 88 per cent. of the most successful companies in Britain recognise unions and provide opportunities for their employees to be represented by them. As for those companies which do not adopt that approach and which act unfairly, the legislation that we shall introduce will ensure fairness across the board. It will ensure that, when employees want recognition rights and vote for them, they will get them.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I join in welcoming the new Front-Bench team to their new posts, especially the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). When the hon. Gentleman gets used to standing at the Dispatch Box and facing questions, he may discover that he is there to answer them—unlike the response that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon).
Will the Minister confirm that the purpose of the proposed legislation is to increase the proportion of unionised firms in the United Kingdom from what it might otherwise have been, and to restore the influence of the trade union movement in our industrial and corporate affairs? I am sure that he would agree with that. It follows on Mr. Edmonds's advice to members of the Labour party when he said:
Let us trust in the years ahead every time a Labour MP walks through the chamber of the House of Commons they remember the help they received from the GMB and so many other trade unions.
The Minister speaks of partnership. Does he envisage a return to the so-called social partnership and the corporatist policies of yesterday, when a bigger trade union movement joined industry and Government in framing industrial and economic policies? I suspect that he personally agrees with that. Will that be added to the new social chapter with its proposals for works councils in every company with more than 50 employees? How does all that square with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's reference yesterday to flexible labour markets?

Mr. McCartney: First, when I stand at the Dispatch Box and answer for my Government, I know—unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman—that the rest of the Government support me. Secondly, this Government are not looking to the past—unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is locked in the past. The Government are looking to the future. What can be wrong with the principle that someone joins a union and, in a secret ballot, seeks recognition? That is granted as part of a partnership in which we motivate the work force through

skills and investment in training so as to ensure that Britain becomes the number one economic driving force in Europe, whereas the right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to make it the sweatshop of Europe.

Fireworks

Mr. Burden: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her Department's review of firework safety regulations. [660]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): I plan to introduce a number of new controls on fireworks. Draft regulations will be issued later this month. The proposals include statutory measures and I am confident that many of them will enjoy the support of safety bodies and of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Mr. Burden: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new role and pay tribute to the work on firework safety that he did in opposition. We welcome a Government who put public safety first in these matters. Will my hon. Friend address the issue of enforcement as there is evidence that some firms, albeit a minority, may be seeking to get round the existing regulations?

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend fought tirelessly for a ban on aerial shells and other dangerous fireworks, and we plan to ensure that those are kept out of the hands of the public. Anyone seeking to get round the prohibition by using bogus legal arguments will be the subject of swift action by trading standards officers.

Mr. Garnier: What was the value of fireworks imported from China last year?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not have the figures, but I will happily let the hon. Gentleman have them. The history of the Conservative Government in limiting dangerous fireworks coming into this country was woeful. Through the measures that I have outlined, which will go out for consultation shortly, we intend to tackle as effectively as we can the terrible problems that fireworks have caused, and which have resulted in a 50 per cent. increase in the number of injuries over the past five or six years.

Mr. Heppell: Will my hon. Friend keep in mind the tragic death of 10-year-old Dale Mitchell in my constituency, and remember that the age at which people can buy fireworks should be reconsidered, which is one of the things that the Mitchell family wants?

Mr. Griffiths: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall consider that. I well remember joining him to present a 17,000-name petition to protest about the weak fireworks regulations. The efforts that he put into the fireworks safety campaign will bear fruit on bonfire night this year, and I pay tribute to him.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Government have come in with a bang and I welcome Ministers to the Front Bench. Despite the Minister's assurance that he will tighten up


on regulations, is he satisfied—given the role of Chinese crackers and other fireworks—that the regulations are being properly enforced?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman knows exactly what he is talking about. It is important that the fireworks that he mentions should be rigorously controlled. I am confident that the consultation document will specifically consider those fireworks. Trading standards and other enforcement officers in tandem must ensure that the law is upheld and that the future tougher regulations bring the real benefits that all hon. Members seek.

Business Rates

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received from businesses concerning the future of business rates. [661]

Mrs. Roche: To date, my departmental colleagues and I have not received any formal representations from businesses on the future of business rates. However, we have given a manifesto commitment to return to locally set business rates and will be consulting widely on how that might be implemented.

Mr. Jenkin: Does the hon. Lady agree that small businesses already pay too much in business rates?

Mrs. Roche: I certainly agree that the unified business rate introduced by the previous Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a supporter, is widely loathed and is an unfair tax, according to the "Your Business Matters" conference, as reported by the Institute of Directors. We need a system that is fair to business and does not place an undue burden on small businesses.

Mr. William O'Brien: When considering the future of the uniform business rate, will the Minister have a word with her colleagues about those businesses which have their rates assessed on turnover rather than profit? They are at a disadvantage because the margin is so low that in many areas they face tremendous problems in sustaining their business. In many instances, it is a question of valuation. I appeal to my hon. Friend to have a word with her colleagues at the Department of the Environment about business rates and the assessments that take place from time to time which are unfair to many small businesses.

Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend raises some important points and I can assure him that they will all be taken into consideration as part of the consultation exercise.

Mr. Nicholls: Does it not follow from what the hon. Lady said to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) that she will be minded to pick up a proposal made in the Conservative party manifesto that the burden of rates should be shifted so that smaller business pays less and greater business pays more, or is it simply that the hon. Lady's apparent conservatism goes no further than rhetoric?

Mrs. Roche: I am astonished at what the hon. Gentleman says. He supported a Government who

introduced the uniform business rate, which has been widely criticised by business. It was his hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) who produced a document called "Fairer Business Rates", and his right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, who described the uniform business rate as an unfair burden. The present Government are determined to do something to help our business community and I am sure that we shall have the hon. Gentleman's support as a result.

Pit Closures

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals she has to meet representatives of companies affected by the coal mines closure programme. [662]

Mr. Battle: I am happy to meet and listen to representatives from the coal industry—as I have done in the past and since the election—and more contacts are planned.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his new position and wish him well in the work that he is doing. I draw his attention to the impact of the coal closure programme on companies such as British Jeffrey Diamond in the mining engineering sector in Wakefield. When my hon. Friend meets UK coal producers, will he remind them of the importance of purchasing British engineering products for British pits, particularly in areas such as Wakefield? To pick up the Secretary of State's earlier point on exports, will my hon. Friend actively press his Department to do far more to support the export efforts of companies such as British Jeffrey Diamond?

Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his information about British Jeffrey Diamond. Mining engineering technology developed in Britain is second to none and has a long history of manufacturing and engineering expertise. I am tempted to say that it was neglected in previous times, but I hope that it will be fully supported now. We have export drives and promotion campaigns; there is one for mining in Poland. The aim of that campaign is to help UK exporters. We also want to improve markets here. If my hon. Friend will let me have details, I will ensure that companies are put in touch with the relevant officials and we may be able to make progress.

Small Businesses

Mr. Singh: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the Government's policy towards small businesses. [663]

Mrs. Roche: Small businesses are a vital part of the Government's programme because of their importance to the economy in the jobs they provide, the wealth they create and the new ideas and technology many of them develop.
Our priorities are: cutting red tape, taking tough action on late payment and improving information and support for small firms.

Mr. Singh: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment? Does she agree that the statutory right to


interest on late payments will help many businesses in my constituency and others that are plagued by enormous cash flow problems?

Mrs. Roche: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. He is right to draw attention to the enormous problems that late payment of commercial debt causes our small businesses. I am delighted that it was announced in the Gracious Speech that the Government will introduce a fair payment of commercial debts Bill.

Mr. Whittingdale: I am gratified to learn that the Minister has read the pamphlet by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). I hope that she found it enlightening. Will she tell the House what the Government will do to help reduce the burden of business rates on small businesses?

Mrs. Roche: We have a manifesto commitment, and we have stated that we will have a consultative programme, which is more than the previous Government had in 18 years in imposing that burden. We will localise the business rate and enable proper consultation between local firms and local authorities, because that is vital. The hon. Gentleman might care to consult the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who was a member of the previous Administration's deregulation task force, which fully supported our proposals.

Mr. Stevenson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons the Tories lost the election was that they failed to support small businesses, especially through the business rate? Is she also aware that, in my constituency, council tax has not increased for two years, but business rates have gone up by no less than 30 per cent? That happened under the Conservatives, who are the enemy of small businesses.

Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. It is clear from speaking to small business people throughout the country that concern about the business rate is at the top of their minds.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What is the Minister going to do?

Mrs. Roche: It is no use the Tories protesting. The previous Government organised the "Your Business Matters" conference, at which the UBR and the business rate were at the top of the agenda for concern. Who introduced the UBR? The Tories.

Mr. Page: May I congratulate the hon. Lady on being appointed the Minister with responsibility for small businesses? I wish her every success, with my hands out straight and no fingers crossed. As the Government are getting used to U-turns, may I ask for one more—on the social chapter? If that is not possible, will the Minister lobby furiously for an opt-out or derogation for small firms? Small firms will create employment, but they will be hit hard by the minimum wage. Let them not be hit hard by the social chapter. I do not mean the social chapter of today, but the one that will follow as soon as we are foolish enough to sign the agreement.

Mrs. Roche: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for his great courtesy to me when I was his

shadow. It was much appreciated. He should consider the wording of the social chapter. I know that the former Chancellor did not read the Maastricht treaty, but there is no excuse for not reading the social chapter, which expressly mentions small firms and says that nothing will be done under the chapter mechanism that places an undue administrative burden on them. We made it very clear that we would use the mechanism to promote employability and competitiveness, and that is what we will do.

Aerospace Industry

Mr. Pike: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions her Department has held with the United Kingdom aerospace industry on the impact of the merger of Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. [664]

Mr. Battle: The Department is in constant dialogue with the United Kingdom aerospace industry on a range of issues, including future competitive challenges. It is important that the sector should be in a strong position to meet those challenges over the coming months and years.

Mr. Pike: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new appointment, and wish him and his team well for the years ahead.
As my hon. Friend knows, the aerospace industry is crucial to the UK economy, particularly in Lancashire, and the merger will have a tremendous effect on it, both in the UK and in Europe. Will my hon. Friend take all possible steps to ensure that the Government work with the industry to make certain that it is not squeezed, and that we do not lose jobs as a result of the merger that is taking place in the United States?

Mr. Battle: Yes. The UK aerospace industry is the third largest in the western world, employing more than 110,000 people. Exports alone are worth about £7 billion. The industry is the second largest source of research and development, and there are spin-offs into other industries.
It is not usual for Ministers to comment on the details of mergers, but I can tell my hon. Friend that this is a matter for the European Commission and the United States competition authorities. The Government are closely following the Commission's investigation of the proposed merger. The parties are providing the Commission with further information, so it is not yet time to take a firm UK view; but I emphasise that the Government are keen to support the aerospace industry and enable it to develop, not least through support for research and development, which we hope will strengthen the sector and secure even more jobs.

Sir Peter Emery: Will the Minister implore the President of the Board of Trade to pay particular attention to Britain's role in the space industry? We shall be able to have a great deal of new business if that is done properly. Will the Minister ensure that our commitment to the European Space Agency is properly fulfilled?

Mr. Battle: Again, the answer is yes. We intend to do even better than the last Government in that respect.

Political Donations

Mr. Winnick: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make it her policy that prior to companies making political donations a ballot of shareholders must be held. [665]

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: There is great public concern about the source of certain party-political funds. I know that my hon. Friend will warmly welcome the Government's commitment in the Queen's Speech to reforming the regulation and funding of political parties.

Mr. Winnick: Indeed I do.
Is it not the case that, since 1913, no trade union has been able to donate money for political purposes unless it has first held and won a political ballot? As that is the case, and has been for many years, what justification can there be for companies not holding a similar ballot among shareholders? All we want is a level playing field, equality and fairness. I hope that that will soon come about.

Mr. Griffiths: As my hon. Friend has rightly pointed out, there is an inconsistency. The Government will make an announcement shortly about how they propose to take forward reform of the funding of political parties.

Mr. Rowe: How many companies that contributed to the Labour party's funds in the run-up to the general election would be affected by the proposal?

Mr. Griffiths: I suspect that, if more companies are involved now than were under the Conservatives, it is a reflection of the terrible service that the Conservative Government gave businesses large and small. Perhaps that is why the hon. Gentleman finds himself in his present sad seat.

Manufacturing Investment

Dr. Kumar: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals she has to increase total manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom. [666]

Mrs. Beckett: Increased investment will come only with economic stability and the right framework for business competitiveness. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has laid the foundations for the first. Yesterday, I announced an agenda for the second, which includes working with business to promote long-term investment.

Dr. Kumar: I am grateful for that answer, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment. I am sure that she will make a grand success of the job compared with the Tories. May I draw her attention to the fact that, in 1978 under the previous Labour Government, the manufacturing sector in Teesside employed 94,000 people, but by 1995 that figure had fallen to 47,000, which is a decrease of 50 per cent. May I urge her and the Government to set new standards? Our manufacturing economic base should be our first priority, and I urge her to lead from the front on that issue.

Mrs. Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. We are pleased to see him back in the House in

his rightful place. I am particularly pleased because he is a native of my constituency. I share his view about the huge importance of manufacturing and the need for new opportunities in manufacturing. I have long held the view that one of the worst features—there were many to choose from—of the previous Government's record during the 1980s was their neglect of, and even attacks on, manufacturing. That attitude needs to be reversed, and the Government will reverse it.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In the past year, the right hon. Lady and I have spoken on the same platform about the importance of our manufacturing industry, and she knows my commitment to it. I believe that it is vital to a sound and progressive economy. Does she think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider sympathetically the reintroduction of properly targeted and properly directed capital allowances? I believe that they are an effective way of encouraging positive investment in manufacturing industry.

Mrs. Beckett: I do not want to harm the hon. Gentleman's political career, but not only have we spoken about manufacturing on the same platform: sometimes we have said the same things about the importance of manufacturing and how it could be promoted. I share his view that it is very important. Like him, we have explored the importance of techniques such as he identified, especially at certain stages in the business cycle. I hope that the advisory group on competitiveness that I shall establish will, at an early stage, report on the most effective way to stimulate and promote investment, particularly in manufacturing, in the present climate.

Mr. MacShane: I welcome my right hon. Friend and her team to their jobs, because for the first time in 20 years we have Ministers who are from the manufacturing centres. May I invite her to consider the problem of the current strength of sterling, which is in the red zone? It is now less attractive to invest in the United Kingdom, and very attractive to buy overseas. Will she perhaps have a quiet word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him to consider what could be done to put sterling trade at a more competitive level for our exports of manufactured goods?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend also has a long record of concern for and advocacy of manufacturing industry. It is extremely important to have stability in the handling of economic affairs. In the long term, it contributes to lower inflation, higher investment and an improvement in general economic indicators, so that British industry becomes more competitive. The efforts of the Government and this team will be directed towards the competitiveness of British industry in the long term.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The right hon. Lady has the most stimulating job in government, and I am sure that she will find it exciting. She should obviously bear it in mind that she has inherited from the previous Government a strong record on manufacturing investment. It was up 9 per cent. in the last quarter over the previous quarter, and manufacturing productivity was up 80 per cent. in the period 1979 to 1997. Will she commit herself to ensuring that science, technology and research play a big role in trying to stimulate manufacturing investment? As the


President of the Board of Trade and the champion of industry, will she take on, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the concerns of industry about their investment plans, especially those that may be affected by the windfall tax?

Mrs. Beckett: I shall begin by answering the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. As the windfall tax is by definition a tax that is to be levied on the excess profits of the privatised utilities, there will be no reason whatever for it to influence investment. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asks about the role of science. I share his view about the importance of science and science policy, which is why I have asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), to take responsibility for it, and why I have taken specific responsibility for oversight of it.
I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman when he speaks about the "wonderful record" that we have inherited from the previous Government. As he says, in the first quarter of 1997 there was a sharp increase in manufacturing investment, but that is a sign of the peculiar, very patchy record of the Conservative Government and shows how difficult it is to justify the hon. Gentleman's claims because, despite that sharp rise in one quarter, the level of investment was no higher than it was at the end of 1995. Under the previous Government, there was no sustained improvement, only occasional blips in a generally poor record.
These issues are important. The British people have a right to know the truth about any Government's record on this matter and about the benchmark that the Government have inherited. For that reason, we are preparing, and I intend to publish, an audit of the true competitiveness of Britain that we inherited from the Conservative Government, warts and all. We shall publish anything that we find good in that record, but we shall also publish all the problems and criticisms that we have inherited. We shall be content to be judged on a true record and not on party propaganda.

Low Pay Commission

Dr. Godman: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her proposals to create a low pay commission. [667]

Mr. Ian McCartney: We have appointed Professor George Bain as chairman of the independent low pay commission. The other commission members, who will include representatives of employers, including small business, and employees, will be appointed as soon as practicable. The commission will undertake wide-ranging consultation and take account of the economic circumstances prevailing at the time before making its recommendation to Government on the level at which the national minimum wage might be introduced.

Dr. Godman: I offer my compliments to my hon. Friend on his appointment. I had a wee bet with his sister Irene that he would become a Minister in a Labour Government. Unfortunately she has not yet paid up. Perhaps he could speak to her.
Many hundreds of families in my constituency who receive family credit will welcome the announcement about the low pay commission. Does my hon. Friend

agree that family credit is a massive state subsidy to employers, many of whom are too mean to pay their employees a decent wage?

Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about my sister. Perhaps her tardiness makes her a candidate for a seat on the low pay commission.
My hon. Friend raises a critical issue. Businesses in Britain have come to accept that low pay is deeply anti-competitive and anti-business. Employers who follow good employment practices are undermined by employers who use the tax system to subsidise their labour costs at the expense of those good employers. We need a balance between in-work benefits and the minimum wage. That is what the low pay commission is about and it is why so many employers want to serve on it. If we are not careful, we shall have to book Wembley stadium for the commission's first meeting.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does the Minister agree with Professor George Bain, the new chairman of the low pay commission, who is reported to have said two days ago of the minimum wage:
I would be surprised if there were not some job losses.

Mr. McCartney: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has entirely misquoted Professor George Bain. Professor Bain said that, if the minimum wage were set at an inappropriate level and did not take economic circumstances into account, there could be job losses. There is no evidence whatever that a minimum wage set at a sensible level in terms of economic circumstances would cause job losses. It will assist in the creation of jobs. Under the previous Administration, more than 200,000 jobs a month lay vacant on Employment Service records because people could not afford to take them. We need a minimum wage that is set in such a way that it makes jobs affordable, as part of welfare to work, to move people off benefit into work, giving them an opportunity to earn.
How can members of a previous Government, who allowed former Tory Ministers who lost their seats in 1992 to receive up to £500 a day for turning up at quango meetings, stand here and criticise 800,000 families who are trying to survive on under £2.50 an hour?

Post Office

Mr. Gapes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the future of the Post Office. [669]

Mrs. Beckett: We have initiated a review of options for implementing our election manifesto pledge to grant the Post Office greater commercial freedom to take advantage of new challenges and opportunities, both domestically and internationally. The review will enable us to develop a coherent and comprehensive policy programme for the Post Office, something which the previous Government so signally failed to do.

Mr. Gapes: May I welcome my right hon. Friend in three ways: first, to her appointment; secondly, for her statement about the future of the Post Office; and, thirdly, on behalf of my constituents, for the action that she and


my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), took to reprieve Ilford Crown post office, which has been a fantastically popular decision? I thank the Government on behalf of my constituents.

Mrs. Beckett: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and his welcome. I am very familiar with the valiant campaign that he and so many of my hon. Friends fought on that issue in the interests of their constituents. I know that his remarks will find an echo with many of them.

Mr. Yeo: In view of the unsatisfactory level of service that many of my constituents and people in other parts of the country receive from the Royal Mail, and the extraordinary success in raising standards of service in industries that have been privatised, will full-scale privatisation be among the options considered in the right hon. Lady's review?

Mrs. Beckett: No, it will not. The Post Office, even under the previous Government, who did nothing but undermine and interfere with it, is one of the most commercially and professionally successful post offices in the world. I am appalled as well as surprised that the hon. Gentleman should be so critical. The Post Office hopes, believes and will show in its future plans that, given the commercial freedom denied on dogmatic grounds by the previous Government, it will be able substantially to improve service. What the hon. Gentleman hates is that it will do so in public ownership.

Low Pay

Mr. Bennett: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made about the impact of low wages on the competitiveness of British industry. [670]

Mr. Ian McCartney: The introduction of the national minimum wage will encourage industry to compete on the quality of the goods and services they provide rather than

by a downward spiral of low pay. By raising morale, it will lead to greater employee commitment and reduced absenteeism, staff turnover and recurring training costs.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend share my concern for a constituent who is faced with the sack because he would not work two weekends of overtime? Due to his low pay, had he worked those two weekends, he would have lost his entitlement to family credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit. Is not that appalling? Would not it be far better to force employers to pay a decent wage so that people could be floated off such benefits?

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend describes exactly why the in-work benefit system has become a grotesque subsidy to employers instead of assistance to low-paid workers and their employment opportunities. For my hon. Friend's constituent, the subsidy means that the employer does not pay to a level on the sure-or-not basis of knowing that the state will pick up his or her labour costs. I reassure my hon. Friend that, from day one of employment, wherever his constituents work, they will be entitled to a national minimum wage.

Mr. Streeter: I genuinely understand the concerns about low pay, but is not the Minister aware that in the west country especially there are many small businesses, particularly hotels and guest houses, where the owners make a very modest profit and could not afford the hourly rates of pay that the low pay commission is talking about? What will the Minister say to the thousands of young people in the west country who lose their jobs when the Labour Government introduce a minimum wage?

Mr. McCartney: The low pay commission is not discussing any rates, and it has not yet met or even been established—but watch this space. Increasingly, small business organisations support in principle the concept of a minimum wage. Many companies in the catering industry, such as Whitbread, now publicly support the concept of a national minimum wage in principle. Across all sectors of the economy, survey after survey shows support from employers for the minimum wage. The only people who oppose the minimum wage are Tory Members and their fat cat supporters.

Business of the House

Mr. Alastair Goodlad: May I ask the Leader of the House for the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 JUNE—Debate on the European Union on a Government motion.
Motion on the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 compensation scheme.
TUESDAY 10 JUNE—Second Reading of the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 11 JUNE—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
THURSDAY 12 JUNE—Motion on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Stratford Station and Subsidiary Works) Order.
Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (Amendment) Order.
FRIDAY 13 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
MONDAY 16 JUNE—Progress in Committee on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 pm.

Mr. Goodlad: I thank the right hon. Lady for the business as far as it goes. She seems again to have forgotten her promise to do her best to give us the business for two weeks. I wonder whether she can give us any idea of the business for the remainder of the week commencing 16 June.
Can the right hon. Lady tell us when the motions to set up the departmental Select Committees will be tabled and when the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges will be set up? There is a desire on both sides of the House to proceed with that as a matter of urgency, not least in the light of the position of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar).
Does the right hon. Lady agree that, given the range of subjects that will be covered at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference in Amsterdam, the Government's determination to take this country into the social chapter, their intention to concede further qualified majority voting and the need for them to set out their position in respect of a single currency in the light of developments in France and Germany this week, it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to speak in the debate on Europe on Monday rather than the departmental Minister? Can she confirm that the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House after the conference?
Will the right hon. Lady arrange for an early statement to clarify how the Government intend to resist pressure from our European partners for all companies with more than 50 staff to set up works councils or face sanctions?
Will the right hon. Lady arrange for an early statement about the announcement on union recognition made yesterday by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to the GMB annual conference, about which

the Queen's Speech was noticeably reticent? Could such a statement include an interpretation of the remarks of Mr. John Edmonds of the GMB, who expressed the view that every Labour Member should continue to remember the help that they received from the GMB and so many other trade unions?
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister's secret discussions with the public sector unions yesterday included the possibility of abandoning compulsory competitive tendering, and will she arrange for her right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to make an early statement on that matter?
Can the right hon. Lady tell us whether we might expect a statement on the Government's defence review, which was announced outside the House during the Whitsun recess?
Will the right hon. Lady make an early statement on whether the Prime Minister plans to attend the transfer of sovereignty ceremonies in Hong Kong? Will an early statement be made on the Government's attitude to the Prime Minister's attending the proposed swearing-in of the provisional legislature?
Is it not clear that concern has increased in the House and among the public at the politicisation of the civil service? Last week, Sir Michael Bett, the First Civil Service Commissioner, publicly expressed his misgivings about the Government's behaviour. Will the Leader of the House confirm that she will arrange for an early debate in Government time on the matter, which has constitutional implications, and publish in advance the names and salaries of all political appointees?
Yesterday, a point of order was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) on allegations that political appointees who have not been positively vetted have sought or gained access to classified material, which can be handled only by those who have been positively vetted. Will the right hon. Lady tell us when we can expect a statement in the House on that matter, which has serious security implications?
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that any announcement by the Home Secretary about changes to the primary purpose rule will be made first in a statement to the House?

Mrs. Taylor: I shall deal with all the points raised by the shadow Leader of the House. I, too, regret that it is not possible at this stage in the Parliament, because our business is only starting, to give more advance warning of what will happen. We shall, however, start to do so in future weeks, as the pattern of business becomes clearer.
I share the concern expressed by the shadow Leader of the House that departmental Select Committees should be established as soon as possible. Some discussions have already taken place, and we can build on those. This week, we have been able to establish a couple of Committees that are dealing with more urgent matters. I agree that establishing the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges is a priority, and I hope that we shall be able to do so before long.
As for the Government's agenda at Amsterdam, a range of documents will have to be considered on Monday, partly because the previous Government were reluctant to discuss some of the issues in the House. Monday's debate


will be opened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The shadow Leader of the House asked whether the Prime Minister would be willing to make a statement after Amsterdam. I can confirm that that is the situation, and that a statement will be made to the House.
The proposals on works councils that are currently being discussed are ones that have not found favour. My right hon. Friends have made it clear that they will want to consider very carefully any proposals on that matter.
On the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: The House knows my views on electronic devices.

Mrs. Taylor: Madam Speaker, the House shares those views.
In his comments at this week's conference, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said that there should be consultations on those issues. There will be wide consultation, which I hope will be generally welcomed.
The shadow Leader of the House suggested that the Deputy Prime Minister had had secret discussions. If the discussions were so secret, I am not sure how he knows so much about them. It is not a matter of abandoning any system of value for money within local authorities. Questions have already been answered in the House about CCT, and the Government have made it clear that we want local authorities, and everyone else, to ensure that best value for money on all contracts is obtained.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has said that he will conduct a defence review, which is what the Government said they would do before and during the general election.
Statements have already been made on Hong Kong, making it clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the changeover. I think that the Prince of Wales will also attend. The question of anyone else attending remains open, and final decisions have not yet been made.
The shadow Leader of the House was not correct in his interpretation of Sir Michael Bett's opinion on political advisers. Sir Michael Bett said that, at this stage, he was not concerned about what has happened, and I think that hon. Members have tried to take his comments out of context. There is no reason to have any debate on that issue. We shall, of course, follow normal practice on publication of names and salaries.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is answering a parliamentary question on the primary purpose rule. That is in general the procedure that has been adopted with other changes in the immigration rules.
On the question about positive vetting, my understanding is that very few special or political advisers have any need to be positively vetted, as they do not see material that comes into that category. The only person who does come into that category is Jonathan Powell, the Prime Minister's chief of staff. He has been positively vetted in the past and that is being renewed.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the delicate matter of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, will my

right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, back in February and March, some of us chided Tony Newton on the delay in publishing the report, yet now my right hon. Friend is saying, "before long". What is the difficulty? Is it drowned in a mire of lawyers?

Mrs. Taylor: The difficulty is in having proper consultations. People who are interested in that Committee might be interested in other Committees as well, so we have to consider the matter carefully. It is in the interests of every Member of this House—past and, I hope, present—that the report that causes my hon. Friend concern is published as soon as possible. That will be a decision for the new Committee.

Sir Peter Emery: Has not almost every Labour Minister said frequently from the Dispatch Box that there is a need for open government to be practised by the new Government? Does the right hon. Lady agree with that? If so, will she now do two things? The first is to publish a list of all the review bodies and consultative bodies mentioned in every ministerial speech from the Dispatch Box, so that we can keep up to speed on that matter.
Secondly—following on from what my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House said—as political advisers to Secretaries of State are likely to see documents that would usually require positive vetting, will the right hon. Lady list all the political advisers and those who have or have not been positively vetted and publish their salaries?

Mrs. Taylor: On the last point, I made the position clear to the shadow Leader of the House. There is not a whole raft of people required to undergo positive vetting. Were they required to do so, that would be carried out. However, as far as I have been able to determine, only one person falls into that category.
With regard to a list of review bodies, Ministers are responsible for any that they establish and I do not propose to keep a central list.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, despite Conservative protestations, the Conservative Government intended to sack more than 300 Customs and Excise officers. In the fight against drugs, it is absolutely essential that we retain the highest level of care. Having just returned from Colombia, I know the enormous reputation of British customs for its superb work. Can my right hon. Friend find time in the coming week to make that clear to the House?

Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure about the coming week, but I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work that Customs and Excise officers do, especially on the difficult issue of drugs. They have performed extremely hard and difficult work to good effect, although there are still many problems to be tackled. I shall bring my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, as I know that she is also concerned to ensure that Customs and Excise officers are there in the numbers required and able to do the job for which they are appointed.

Mr. Robert Key: Given that the Government announced this week, by way of a written


answer, that there would be no statement on the defence estimates this year, will the right hon. Lady ensure that there is a debate on defence before the House rises this summer? The defence of the realm cannot wait for another Labour review.

Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure that there will be a debate before the House rises for the summer, but there will be defence debates in the normal course of events and I think it inconceivable that there will not be one during the next few months.

Ms Joan Walley: May I bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the concerns of many in Staffordshire about the reduction in the number of continuing care beds for the mentally frail and elderly? Does my right hon. Friend intend that there will be an early opportunity to debate the issue in the House? There is a genuine concern among elderly people about the closure of beds.

Mrs. Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is taking a hard look at mental health services in hospitals and in the community. We must ensure that those services are provided in the best interests of the patient and of the community. I am sure that my hon. Friend's comments will be taken into account.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will the right hon. Lady consider having an urgent debate on responsibilities and ministerial manpower in the Department for Education and Employment? Whereas there used to be three Ministers responsible for school matters, there now appear to be only two. That is causing problems. Already, colleagues have received a letter discouraging too many delegations to Ministers. The situation has resulted in a delay in the decision on the age of transfer in my local education authority in Buckinghamshire, causing great anxiety to parents, pupils, teachers and the local education authority. I believe that the explanation for the delay is inadequate ministerial manpower.

Mrs. Taylor: It is unusual for Conservatives to request more Ministers in a Department. I hope that the difficulties that the hon. Lady suggests do not exist—that has not been my experience. I should have thought that the activities of the Ministers in that Department, including this week's announcement about summer literacy schools, show that they are very much on top of their job.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I know that we have a heavy legislative programme, because the Government have 26 Bills, but we are keen to get on with discussing many other proposals that were in our manifesto. Will it be possible to have a debate about a disability rights commission, which many of us have strongly advocated? We know that it will not be legislated for in the first year, but if we had a debate about it, perhaps we could work out where we stand, what the proposals are and when they could be delivered.

Mrs. Taylor: I respect my hon. Friend's long-term interest in the issue, but I cannot promise an immediate

debate. However, I shall keep a list of the requests that could be processed if time allows. I shall ensure that his request about disability rights gets some consideration. I shall come back to him on that as soon as possible.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I support the plea of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about Customs and Excise. She has identified a tremendous need. Does the Leader of the House agree that Thursday's motion on Northern Ireland is rather narrow? I should also like to know when we can look forward to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee being set up, so that it can get down to business.

Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that those who work in Customs and Excise will welcome the hon. Gentleman's support. Thursday's motion on Northern Ireland is specific, as he said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has had discussions on the issue in the usual way. We are hoping for progress on the Grand Committee before long. Communications and discussions have been established, and we shall make progress as soon as we can.

Mr. Martin Salter: Will my right hon. Friend provide parliamentary time to debate important public safety issues, such as the discovery yesterday by trading standards officers in Reading of alcohol levels of up to 4.5 per cent. in freezerpops on sale to young children at retail outlets such as Asda and Kwik Save? My constituents are outraged that those products have caused illness in children as young as two. They are looking to the Government for action.

Mrs. Taylor: Many people will share my hon. Friend's concern. He used the most appropriate word when saying that people were outraged. It is not acceptable for a company to provide so-called freezerpops in that way. I understand that the items have been withdrawn, but the situation should not have arisen, and action must be taken to ensure that it is not repeated.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Leader of the House aware of the disaster facing the fishing industry, especially over quota hopping, but that such issues are not part of the draft consolidated intergovernmental conference treaty? In addition to Monday's general debate on Europe, will the right hon. Lady arrange a debate specifically on fishing, or guarantee that her ministerial colleagues will raise the matter at the IGC?

Mrs. Taylor: My right hon. and hon. Friends who are involved in those discussions have been talking to colleagues within the European Union about the problem of quota hopping. We realise that it is a very difficult situation for many fishermen and, indeed, that it could be for the British consumer. The problem is of very long standing—the previous Government made no progress, which makes our task more difficult. However, I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that my right hon. and hon. Friends are pursuing the matter with all possible vigour.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Can my right hon. Friend, who is a keen football supporter, say what the Government have done to enable the Football Trust to



complete work on ground safety and other necessary work such as that now being undertaken at Bolton and that which has been undertaken at Burnley football club?

Mrs. Taylor: In view of my hon. Friend's last comment, I should perhaps again declare an interest in Bolton Wanderers. The Government have today announced a package of help for the Football Trust amounting to £55 million, half of which will come from the Football Association and Premier League and half from the Sports Council. That will enable many clubs, especially those in the lower divisions, to bring their grounds up to the required safety standard. All of us are very pleased that progress is being made.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: Is the Leader of the House aware that, in a conference that is overlapping with business questions, the Deputy Prime Minister is announcing the publication of a White Paper on transport, a statement that should perhaps have been made to the House? Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) was delayed in coming here because he felt it necessary to monitor that statement. In view of the important position that transport and the environment allegedly have in the Labour party's manifesto, does not the Leader of the House believe that the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement should have been made in the House, thus allowing hon. Members to be here rather than having their attention divided?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure why Conservative Members are saying, "Hear, hear," because the previous Government rarely announced White Papers in the House. My right hon. Friend is not announcing the publication of a White Paper; he is announcing that there is going to be a White Paper, which is a reasonable thing to announce outside the House. Clearly, there is a need for better co-ordination of transport policy with other aspects of Government policy. That is what my right hon. Friend has been emphasising, and he has made an important statement on World Environment day.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on defence and foreign policy, which we have not yet debated in this Parliament? Such a debate would give the House the opportunity to discuss NATO expansion ahead of the Madrid summit that is due to take place in early July, and the proposed expansion of NATO has enormous financial implications and implications for nuclear proliferation.

Mrs. Taylor: I said earlier to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that I could see no prospect of a defence debate in the very near future, or this side of the summer recess. However, I am sure that there will be such a debate before very long. Of course, we did not have the usual defence and foreign policy debate during consideration of the Queen's Speech. We might take that fact into account when considering the allocation of time for debates in the next few weeks.

Sir David Madel: Does the right hon. Lady recall that, when she was shadow Leader of the Opposition, she was a strong supporter of the

Jopling Committee and the reforms that it brought about? Will she therefore explain why the Government are this evening suspending the 10 o'clock rule on the Education (Schools) Bill? Why are the Government in such a rush? The spirit of Jopling was that debate on controversial legislation would stop at 7 o'clock on Thursdays. Why are the Government in such a hurry?

Mrs. Taylor: Of course, we want to get our business through—that is one of the responsibilities of a Government. I must correct the hon. Gentleman: I was not shadow Leader of the Opposition, but shadow Leader of the House—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members may not have known that. It is normal practice to use the 10 o'clock motion to protect Government business.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate early-day motion 57?
[That this House welcomes the statement of the Alzheimer's Disease Society of 28th May that in residential homes for the elderly many drugs are being inappropriately used, probably for the benefit of care home staff, which reinforces the recent recommendations of the Royal College of Physicians on the over-use of sedatives and a study in Glasgow that proved that 88 per cent. of elderly recipients of powerful neuroleptic drugs did not need them; is alarmed that alert residents of homes for the elderly are being reduced to a confused zombie-like state by inappropriate prescribing; and calls on the Government to investigate the prescribing of anti-psychotic drugs.]
The motion refers to the over-medication of the elderly in residential homes and, following the evidence given last week by the Alzheimer's Disease Society and the Royal College of Physicians, it is important to discuss that. The evidence shows that there is vast over-prescribing of neuroleptic anti-psychotic drugs in residential homes. In one study, 88 per cent. of the elderly residents were receiving those drugs when they did not need them. People who might well be frail physically, but alert mentally, are turned into a zombie-like state by those drugs. Do we not need to consider the matter urgently in the House?

Mrs. Taylor: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a great deal of concern about the issue, and I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I know that my right hon. Friend agrees that there is a need to encourage high standards of prescribing and that when drugs are made available, they must be of proven clinical effectiveness. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will listen to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who may want to consider other ways in which he can take the matter further.

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): The Leader of the House may be aware that my constituency of Fylde is the British home of the Eurofighter. She will also be aware of the considerable concern felt by many of my constituents at recent statements made by the German Government, which place in doubt their future funding intentions for that vital project. In the light of the discussions of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister with their opposite numbers in Germany, may I have the right hon. Lady's assurance that she will arrange for


a statement to be made to the House, both on the precise assurances that are being given to British Ministers about the project, and on exactly what the German Government have said about honouring their obligations?

Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are firmly committed to the Eurofighter programme. He will also know that it will provide the Royal Air Force with a multi-role aircraft with the operational flexibility to respond to the challenges that we might face in the future. As to the right hon. Gentleman's concerns about Germany's attitude, my right hon. and hon. Friends are actively seeking assurances from the Germans as a matter of priority.

Mr. Alan Simpson: The Leader of the House may not be aware of criticisms made by a judge in Nottingham this week following the stabbing of a child by someone with a known record of violence and abuse of children. May we have a statement by the Secretary of State for Health on the extent of under-funding of care in the community that this Government have inherited and the extent to which the social dumping of the mentally ill has been taking place? I hope that we can also seek to spell out the costs involved in providing adequate protection both for communities and for those with mental health problems.

Mrs. Taylor: As my hon. Friend says, there is a great deal of concern about such issues; unfortunately, this is not the only time that such incidents have taken place. As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is taking a hard look at mental health services, both in hospitals and in the community. We have to take into account not only the needs of the patient, but the safety of the public. My right hon. Friend is very much aware of the need to give further guidance and to try to ensure that such incidents do not happen in future.

Mr. John Greenway: Why is it necessary to use the Wednesday before and the Monday after the Amsterdam summit to discuss further draconian legislation on firearms, which will do nothing for public safety, when far more important issues relating to the summit—particularly the state of the beef sector—are crucial to our constituencies, which the House should discuss? When shall we see the new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the Dispatch Box telling us what he is doing about the problem? Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the Prime Minister will raise the issue at Amsterdam and ask other Prime Ministers of the European Union why, when the previous Government implemented all the measures agreed at the Florence summit, there is still a ban on British beef?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Conservative Government's record was one of delay and incompetence. That has made life infinitely more difficult for current Ministers, who have spent a great deal of time over the past few weeks trying to improve the situation. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism of them, given the background against which they have been operating.
I do not think that the vast majority of the public would agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should not be discussing extending the ban on firearms.

Mr. John Smith: Will my right hon. Friend find time to discuss the collapse of beef prices following the previous Government's mishandling of the BSE crisis? In Cowbridge market last week, finished cattle prices were lower than they were 14 years ago. That is a threat not just to the industry but to our rural environment. Just last week again, for the first time in recent memory, prime agricultural land could not be sold at auction. There will be no one to manage the countryside unless the problem is looked at.

Mrs. Taylor: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, and I am sure that he speaks for many of his constituents. Life has been very difficult for many people in the farming community. As I said earlier, Ministers are now trying to make progress. That is not made any easier by the climate created, and the attitude displayed, by the previous Government; but I assure my hon. Friend that the Government regard the matter as an important priority.

Mr. Tim Yeo: In view of the comments by the newly appointed chairman of the low pay commission—he believes that the introduction of a minimum wage would destroy jobs—and in view of the fact that the jobs most at risk will be those held by young people with few skills, will the right hon. Lady arrange for a debate at an early date when we can fully discuss the new Government's threat to the employment prospects of young people in my constituency and elsewhere?

Mrs. Taylor: Ministers at the Board of Trade were answering questions about that a short time ago. They made it absolutely clear that the chairman-designate of the low pay commission has been quoted out of context. What he said was that there would be a problem only if the minimum wage was set at an unreasonable level, and only if economic circumstances were not taken into account.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the need for the A650 Bingley relief road in my constituency—a road that would bring immense economic and environment benefits to local people? I am fully aware that the Government are undertaking a review of transport policy; but will there be an early opportunity to debate the roads programme review on the Floor of the House?

Mrs. Taylor: As another west Yorkshire Member, I am fully aware of the work and campaigning done by my hon. Friend in that respect. As he says, the Department is conducting a review; before that review is complete, I do not think that a full-scale debate of the kind he would like would be appropriate or likely to take place. My hon. Friend may, however, wish to consider applying for an Adjournment debate or a Wednesday morning debate to advance his cause.

Mr. Stephen Day: When may we expect a statement—I hope for one next week—from the Government on their review of the roads programme? Certain road schemes appear to be in doubt, not least in my constituency. The former Government set a starting


date for the Manchester airport eastern link road and committed themselves to building it. That link road is now in question because of the roads review, which is causing great anxiety in the whole Cheadle area. I hope that the right hon. Lady will arrange for an early statement to the House, so that my constituents and those in other parts of the country who are similarly affected can find out exactly where they stand as soon as possible.

Mrs. Taylor: I think that that matter came up during Environment questions on Tuesday. The review must be thorough and serious, but we do not intend that it should be unduly delayed.

Mr. Peter Luff: Does the right hon. Lady understand that there is growing concern about the way in which she appears to be acquiescing in draconian timetabling of important legislation? I am referring not only to the guillotine on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill this week and the fact that the Education (Schools) Bill that is before us today was given a Second Reading as recently as Monday of this week, but to the fact that similar treatment is being given to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. The Second Reading debate on that Bill will be on Wednesday next week, one sitting day, and the Committee stage will be on Monday 16 June, which gives precious little time for important amendments to be tabled to what is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, a draconian piece of legislation.
If the right hon. Lady cannot change the timetable for that piece of legislation at this late stage, will she at least guarantee that there will be a long period between Committee and Report, to enable amendments to be considered on Report that could not be considered in Committee?

Mrs. Taylor: The way in which we handled the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill and the way in which the guillotine motion was tabled ensured that some of the debates that were most important to those who were closely involved—the main debates—did take place. It is obvious that when we, like any other Government, are

introducing our new programme, we must move quickly on certain Bills, for two reasons. First, we have time on the Floor of the House and it is a good use of that time; and secondly, the measures that we are talking about are all measures that we promised to introduce, and we would have been criticised had we not taken action on measures that were in our manifesto.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As the Labour Government were elected on the rather empty promise that it would be easy to transfer spending from social security to education, and as it is now becoming evident that the actions necessary to control social security are being abandoned and it will be necessary to increase the money devoted to social security, may we have an early debate on the way in which the Government are already abandoning their pledges to the British people?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been following any of the statements that have been made, not least by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. He has announced the first stages of our welfare-to-work programme—an approach that has been widely welcomed.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Can the right hon. Lady tell the House what the size of the compensation package under the firearms Bill is likely to be?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not have the details before me now. That matter was subject to discussion during the previous Parliament and flows directly from the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, which became an Act of Parliament during the previous Session.

Mr. Garnier: I am talking about the firearms Bill, not the Firearms (Amendment) Act.

Mrs. Taylor: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about the new measures under the extension, they will be attached to the Bill, and he can then read all the details.

Points of Order

Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been announced on Ceefax this afternoon that the Home Secretary intends to abolish the primary purpose rule in immigration—it is said, today—and make an announcement. I take it, because we have not had a ministerial statement, that no application has been made to you, but I wonder whether, through you, we might make a plea that any major change to the immigration laws such as the primary purpose rule should be announced to the House first, not communicated to us through a Teletext statement.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman might try to raise that point with the Leader of the House, who is at the Dispatch Box and no doubt heard what he had to say.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As a new Member, I seek your advice. Press reports today indicate that the 1922 Committee of the Conservative party is considering a scheme whereby Conservative Members for English constituencies—of course, there is no other kind—will be asked to take under their wing some Scottish constituencies, especially those that the Conservatives lost at the recent general election.
The public in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale have made a clear decision as to who they wish to represent them and who they do not wish to represent them. I understand that hon. Members do not interfere in the constituencies of other hon. Members. I wonder whether you would consider that matter, and in particular whether that so-called adoption scheme would breach the rules of the House.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will soon learn that I pay very little attention indeed to press reports but, as far as the substance of his question is concerned, it is entirely an internal party matter. It has nothing to do with me as Speaker and certainly nothing to do with this House.

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Questions have been tabled by my colleagues and me, and today was the main day for reply. The questions have a specific bearing on the debate that is about to take place. The answers to those questions seem to be mysteriously not yet available.
Will you, Madam Speaker, guide me and the House? Surely there is a reasonable obligation on Ministers to provide answers in a timely manner to questions that are starred for a specific day, especially when the questions relate to a debate that is to be held in the Chamber.

Madam Speaker: Certainly, answers to all such questions should be available by 3.30 pm. I shall make it my business on leaving the Chair to ascertain what has happened.

Orders of the Day — Education (Schools) Bill

Considered in Committee.

[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

Clause 1

ABOLITION OF ASSISTED PLACES SCHEME IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 20, leave out `1996–97' and insert '1999–2000'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 29, in clause 2, page 1, line 22, leave out '1997–98' and insert '1999– 2000'.
No. 30, in page 2, line 25, leave out '1997–98' and insert '1999–2000'.
No. 15, in clause 3, page 3, line 25, at end insert—
'(g) prescribe circumstances in which existing participation agreements due to terminate at the end of the 1997–98 school year may be extended by a period of up to two years.'.
No. 31, in clause 5, page 4, line 40, leave out '1997–98' and insert '1999–2000'.
No. 32, in page 5, line 4, leave out '1997–98' and insert `1999–2000'.
No. 33, in page 5, line 8, leave out '1997–98' and insert `1999–2000'.
No. 17, in clause 7, page 6, line 36, leave out '1997' and insert '1998'.

Mrs. Gillan: First, Mr. Martin, I welcome you to the Chair. I take the opportunity of extending a welcome to the occupants of the Government Front Bench. I think that I welcomed all of them individually on Second Reading except for the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris). We shall be covering some familiar territory that the hon. Lady and I enjoyed debating during the Education Bill 1997. She was then joined by her redoubtable colleague the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). We shall miss the hon. Gentleman greatly from our education debates both this afternoon and evening and in future.
I offer the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), the shadow Secretary of State. She is not in robust health at the moment. We wish her a speedy recovery. She will be back with us, no doubt, at the beginning of next week.
The Second Reading debate took place as recently as the beginning of this week, and the tone of it certainly set the proposed legislation in context. We have tabled the amendments because of that tone.
The Bill was introduced with indecent haste. It seems that the Government could not wait to rush headlong into abolishing assisted places. I accept that the then Labour Opposition promised to do so 18 years ago, which means that they had to wait 18 years before fulfilling their promise. The tone of the debate on Monday, however, showed their true hostility to independent schools and their hostility to the admirable assisted places scheme.
The APS has widened opportunities for able children from less well-off families throughout almost the entire period during which we had Conservative Governments from 1979. More than 80,000 children have been educated in a variety of schools under that admirable scheme. The list includes some of the most well-known independent schools, not least Fettes, the school of the Prime Minister, which provides assisted places to many children who come from less well-off families than the family of the Prime Minister.
I am proud that my old school, Cheltenham ladies college—I believe that I have been joined in the House by two old girls from the college, albeit not on the Opposition Benches—is represented on the Government Benches. Like me, they attended at a time when only those parents who could afford the astronomical fees were able to have their daughters educated there. The opportunity that they and I received is now being summarily taken away from children whose parents do not have enough money to meet those fees.
The effect of the Bill is to turn independent schools into a socio-economic exclusive zone. Only the children of the very well-off will be able to take up a place at those schools, unless schemes are introduced to replace the present Government funding under the assisted places scheme.
The take-up of the scheme has been practically 100 per cent. at all stages. It is extremely popular with parents. Although the Government have pooh-poohed the results achieved by children holding assisted places, there is no doubt that when we examine the academic results across GCSEs and A-levels, children who hold assisted places repeatedly out-perform children in other forms of education.

Mr. Don Foster: Can the hon. Lady tell the House whether that statement is universally true? Will she acknowledge that, although at the first schools involved in the assisted places scheme, 50 per cent. of the students were gaining five or more good GCSEs, at the schools that have more recently entered the APS, only 19 per cent. of the students are getting five or more good GCSEs? Will she accept that standards are not uniformly high at all the schools involved in the scheme?

Mrs. Gillan: No, I do not accept that. The proportion of pupils in assisted places who achieved grades A to C at GCSE, if I remember correctly, was of the order of 90 per cent. Over the period that the scheme has existed, it has been shown consistently that pupils holding assisted places have out-performed pupils in other areas of the education system.
The Government have rushed headlong to end the scheme. Conservative Members have continually challenged their intentions. The Government said that the

abolition of the scheme was based on two premises: that it would reduce class sizes and that it would benefit the many, not the few.
The claim that class sizes would be reduced has been challenged by the independent schools and by commentators without a vested interest. When the Chartered Institute of Public Finance examined the goals that the Government had set to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds, it estimated that there was a gap of at least £250 million between the money that may be saved by the abolition of the APS and the money required to keep that pledge.
The Government have consistently failed to give us details of the financial mechanisms. How are the 38,000 pupils who are currently being educated in the assisted places scheme to be absorbed by the state system? What provisions will be made for the extra numbers of pupils who will have to be accommodated by the local education authorities?
Can we be assured that the type of education that would have been available to pupils who could reasonably have expected to take up an assisted place will be available to them in the state sector? I refer to the variety in the curriculum offered by independent schools, the amount of sport played at those schools and the general terms and conditions surrounding education in independent schools. How can the Government ensure similar provision for those pupils in the state sector?
The costs have been fudged over and over again. One of the ways in which the Government have tried to hide the real costs is by saying that an assisted place costs some £800 more on average than a place in the state sector. But they have failed to take into account the capital costs that LEAs will incur in expanding schools to take the extra pupils.
I hope that the Minister will tell us how he will find the money to ensure that LEAs, such as that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), do not find themselves in dire circumstances as a result having to absorb those pupils who will no longer be eligible for assisted places.
The amendments have been designed to make the Government stop and think. There is no doubt that they will ride roughshod over the scheme, abolishing it as soon as they can, but why have they introduced the measure so quickly? Why could they not take some time to examine the implications of abolition? Why are they not consulting? In other areas of government, reviews and consultations appear every 10 minutes, but not on the assisted places scheme.
Why not allow all the children to finish their education, not just to the end of primary, but right up to the end of secondary? The amendments would achieve that, and I hope that the Government will consider them seriously before the Bill starts to affect the lives of children in a way that they will come to regret.
Why not allow schools such as Manchester grammar school more time to take the lead? That school is admirably trying to set up a fund to replace the money that it will lose as a result of the Bill. Only today, the Evening Standard reports that some 25 schools of the Girls Public Day School Trust are attempting to get together a fund to cover the 3,000 places in those 25 schools that the Government are casting aside.
Those schools have no time to get together, so 26 schools are effectively working on a scheme and the remainder are being rushed into a timetable which they cannot possibly achieve. If the scheme is to be abolished, it is admirable that those independent schools that have taken part in it should seek an alternative way of providing places for children from low-income families. I strongly recommend that the Government take the amendments seriously. They would provide time to ensure the protection of the education of a future generation of children.
The amendments would allow schemes to be set up properly to provide money at present provided by the assisted places scheme. They would ensure that there were schools of a suitable nature in the state sector to absorb the children who unfortunately would not get an assisted place. In addition, they would give LEAs time to plan for what will be an overwhelming increase in numbers in many areas.
Where will children go if the scheme is abolished and if the schools do not manage to mount a rescue plan? Where will children go who, for example, want to attend a single-sex school or a school of a particular religious denomination? It is important that those questions are answered. We have had no answers, so I presume that the Government have none and so need time to find them.

Mr. David Lidington: Does my hon. Friend agree that any problem involving the availability of places at a denominational school or a single-sex school—caused by the abolition of the assisted places scheme—might mean that a local education authority unintentionally breached the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or even the Race Relations Act 1976? The Government would have landed that LEA in a legal difficulty that was no fault of its own.

Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Local education authorities could have some difficulties with equal opportunities legislation. We have received no explanation from the Government, and we are not satisfied that they have even considered those points in their headlong rush to introduce the Bill.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Following on from that point, does my hon. Friend agree that, in some circumstances, it might be more expensive for an LEA to meet its statutory duties—to provide appropriate education for individual children—outside the private sector and the assisted places scheme?

Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend has much experience in education, and he is right. That is another example of the questions that are raised by the destruction of the scheme that have not been answered by the Government at any stage. I see no evidence that those questions have even been considered by the Government, which is very worrying.
Have the Government considered the effect of the scheme on individuals? I believe that the Government need time to consider that effect. An article in The Times outlined the fact that lone parents will be worst hit by the end of the assisted places scheme. That is one of the

aspects that worry Conservatives. Single mothers would be among the biggest losers if the scheme were abolished. A survey carried out in October 1996 by—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Lady, but the amendments restrict her to a discussion of the date of operation, not the general matters that she is raising.

Mrs. Gillan: I thank you for your guidance, Mr. Martin. I am seeking to—

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The hon. Member is filibustering.

Mrs. Gillan: The Secretary of State, from a sedentary position, says that I am filibustering. I am certainly not filibustering. I have never filibustered in my life. [Laughter.] Labour Members may laugh, but the record shows that I have never filibustered.
I am trying to point out to the Government that if the amendments are accepted, they will have time to consider the questions that I am raising and they are therefore pertinent to the argument about the delay suggested in the amendments. With your permission, Mr. Martin, I will pursue that line of argument, but I do not intend to take up the time of the Committee—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It was not so much guidance that I was giving the hon. Lady, but more of an instruction.

Mrs. Gillan: We all like the smack of firm leadership, Mr. Martin.
If the Government accepted the amendments, they would have time to consider the implications for single mothers. In October 1996, the Girls Public Day School Trust carried out a survey that showed that more than a third of those who benefited from the scheme were single parents. Most of the 1,710 families who responded to the survey had low incomes of under £10,000 a year. More than half of the parents in the survey said that they had applied to the scheme because they would like an independent education for their child. They believed that that style of education was best fitted to their child, but they could not afford it themselves. It is single mothers who will suffer from the Bill.
The amendments would give the Government time to consult their supporters. The Government argue that they were swept into power on their manifesto and that they must keep each and every pledge in it. I can admire a political party for that, but I do not admire a Government who bring in legislation with such rapidity that they do not discuss with their supporters who will be affected by the Bill whether it is a good idea. A survey conducted by MORI for the Independent Schools Information Service showed that more than 55 per cent. of Labour party supporters backed the scheme, but the Government have given themselves no time to consult Labour voters—and, probably, Labour party members—who will be affected badly by their proposals.
4.30 pm
The amendments simply ask the Government to pause and reflect. We ask them to take time to consult schools and parents, examine the educational outcomes and the alternative provision—to ensure that the alternative provision is similar to what is currently provided—and talk to local educational authorities, which, after all, will have to bear the burden of the legislation. I have no evidence that the present ministerial team has consulted LEAs about the implications of the Bill.
We need to safeguard the education of all our children. The Government say that they care deeply about education—in fact, it is "education, education, education"—but, instead of taking a responsible attitude to the Bill, they have introduced it with indecent haste. It is a short Bill, but it is far from simple in terms of the effect that it will have. It would be easy to introduce a very short Bill to abolish the House of Commons, but that, too, would not be simple in terms of its outcome.
I ask the Government to take a breathing space and consider how they will approach the legislation in a proper fashion. I believe that many families, including children, will suffer directly as a result of the Bill that they have introduced so abruptly, without examining its implications.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to the questions that I have raised. I hope that he will be able to give us evidence that adequate consultation has taken place and that he has thought about how he will tackle what will follow the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Don Foster: I do not intend to delay the Committee, but this is clearly a delaying amendment. The Opposition are trying to prevent the speedy passage of a Bill which my party supports, and wants to see on the statute book as quickly as possible. Later in the proceedings, we shall want to probe the Government a little further and suggest some minor amendments to the Bill, but we consider it vital for it to be passed quickly.
We believe that the assisted places scheme has created a two-tier system, that it is divisive and that it did not even succeed in meeting the criteria laid down for it by the previous Administration. As I made clear on Second Reading, we do not oppose the independent schools sector, and would like a much closer relationship between it and the state sector. One of our amendments suggests ways in which that could be achieved.
I rise merely to place clearly on the record the Liberal Democrats' opposition to the assisted places scheme. We want it to be abolished as quickly as possible, so we shall strenuously oppose these amendments.

Mr. Peter Luff: I begin by declaring a personal interest in this subject, as my two children attend schools that have a large number of pupils on assisted places. My children are not in receipt of assisted places. The schools are in the constituency of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster)—my successor as Member for that city—but many of their pupils come from families and households in my constituency and in the rest of Worcestershire.
I am keen that we should give the Government, local education authorities, schools and parents additional time to think about the consequences of this measure, which

is why I shall speak so strongly in support of the amendments. I wish that the Government would understand our concerns. They should take advantage of the time that would be given to them if they accepted the amendments, and should reflect on the fact that it is not schools that benefit from the assisted places scheme, but pupils from ordinary families.
During the election campaign, I met many parents who should have been natural Labour voters but who voted Conservative because they wanted to protect the benefits that they receive from the scheme. [Interruption.] There is no point in hon. Members scoffing at parents from relatively under-privileged backgrounds and families on low-incomes who want to take advantage of the scheme. They will take such scoffing very seriously and badly.
I urge the Minister to take the opportunity provided by the amendments to rethink his position. There is no doubt that the measure will produce some savings, but they will be modest. The main problem posed by the Bill will be faced by the schools. By delaying its implementation for a year or two, the Government would show that their approach is not dogmatic and that they are prepared to be open-minded and flexible and to govern in the interests of all the people, as they frequently claim.
I believe that Worcester Royal grammar school, which my son attends, should have more time to plan for the serious impact that the changes will have on it. It is not an elitist school: its fees are low. It was in the state sector until 1983, and it has offered an outstanding education to bright boys in Worcestershire from any background for more than 700 years. The Bill will, suddenly and dramatically, severely endanger that process.
A sign could be put up outside the Worcester Royal grammar school saying, "Rich kids only at this school. By order, T. Blair." That is the problem. The school does not want that to happen; it wants to continue to offer an education of quality to bright boys in the county from any background. It wants to raise more money for bursaries and scholarships, so that it can carry on offering those opportunities while the assisted places scheme is being phased out. The amendments would give the school another year or two, which would be of huge benefit in enabling it to do that.
I and many people in Worcestershire want to help the Worcester Royal grammar school, King's school, Alice Ottley school and St. Mary's convent—the four schools in Worcester city—some of whose parents and pupils benefit from the assisted places scheme. We want to give them more time to cope with the serious challenge that this dramatic development will present to them.
The development of new bursaries and scholarships will play a crucial part in ensuring that those schools do not become elitist. I do not want them to be elitist: that would be wrong. As I said, the Worcester Royal grammar school has offered a broadly based education to pupils from any background for more than 700 years. It is crucial that it is allowed to continue to provide that. I hope that the Government will take this group of amendments very seriously.
Ninety per cent. of Worcester Royal grammar school's intake on assisted places comes from maintained primary schools. Those pupils are from ordinary backgrounds. The scheme is not a scam to get rich kids educated on the cheap. It is a genuine attempt to provide a different form of education for a specific group of people who can


benefit from it. There are some 260 assisted places at the Worcester Royal grammar school. That is a large number. It may be the largest in the west midlands, and that fact has preserved the diverse, non-elitist character of the school. It desperately needs to be given the time that the amendments would provide to enable it to maintain that character.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) urged the Government to seize this opportunity to stop and think about the implications of their policy. I also urge them to seize the opportunity that is presented by the amendments to consider the matter in detail. Even if they wish to press ahead with the abolition of assisted places—as my hon. Friend said, Labour has been committed to that for 18 years; it is one of the few policies on which it has been consistent—they should pause for breath rather than rush helter-skelter into a policy that is born of a misunderstanding of the role of assisted places. Perhaps it is a misunderstanding in good faith, but it is a misunderstanding nevertheless.
By stopping and thinking, the Government would give opportunities to others to do that. Local education authorities need to be able to plan for the increase in the number of pupils in maintained schools. Some of Worcestershire's schools are full. The sixth-form college in Worcester, which is outside the LEA sector and has separate status, will face a severe increase in demand because the schools offering assisted places are the only schools in the city with sixth forms. Children who will no longer be able to go to those schools will have to go to the sixth-form college, and some will go to the technical college. The sixth-form college is already bursting at the seams and unable to cope with the current number of pupils. It desperately needs time to develop increased facilities and improved buildings to enable it to cope with the large increase.
By considering the amendments favourably and not treating them as a cynical attempt to wreck the Bill, the Government would be doing those institutions a great favour. They would also be conferring a great favour on parents who have one child in an assisted place and hope later to send its sibling to the same school. Those parents will now face difficult decisions about different educations and logistics, and those decisions will be forced on them because they will have children at different schools when they had every reason to expect that they would be at the same school. Of course, delay would enable some parents to take advantage of the scheme for a year or two and perhaps not face those consequences at all.
I accept the Government's sincerity. They think that it is wrong to pay extra to educate children in the independent rather than the state sector. The Government have their sums wrong. I would not be surprised to find that, because of the low fees that are charged by the schools in Worcester city which the children of my constituents attend on assisted places, there would be no saving at all as a result of abolishing assisted places.
If the Government took a little time to look at each area, they might take a different view. They might reach the compromise of limiting the total amount payable under the assisted places scheme to a sum approaching the per-pupil SSA formula figure for that LEA area. That would mean that the assisted places scheme would

remain, and disruption would be avoided. Savings would also result, because the difference in the two figures would be available to the Treasury. I suspect that my constituents who use those schools would still be able to take advantage of the scheme without the adverse knock-on consequences for the rest of the education sector in Worcestershire.
I offer that thought to the Government, although I do not like it. It is an unattractive solution, but if I shared the Government's objectives I should think about it. If they accepted the amendments, they would have time to consider such a scheme and it would deliver the same modest savings without the adverse consequences that I have described.
The amendments would also enable the Government to rethink their arithmetic on the scheme. I do not think that they have done that because they cannot fund their pledge on class sizes and bring about abolition. If they gave themselves a few months to sit down at the Treasury and work that out, the facts would stare them in the face. I urge the Government to give themselves an extra year by accepting the amendments, and to look at the figures in detail.
I understand that the savings from the scheme after phasing and at the end of seven years will be about £268 million. The cost of educating pupils who can no longer go to independent schools and of meeting the pledge on class sizes will be at least £418 million. That is a deficit of £150 million. Therefore, if the class size pledge is met it will put £150 million on the Government's public expenditure total. That is not a huge deficit, but it will not be welcomed by the Chancellor, who is trying to meet his tight public expenditure commitments.
4.45 pm
Independent estimates put the amount much higher than £150 million. I have heard the figure of £250 million mentioned on the basis of good authoritative research. The Government should look again at their figures and pause for breath, as the amendments would allow them to do, and think in detail about the scheme's implications for their objectives.
Acceptance of the amendments would also give the Government time to reflect on how to achieve their class size reduction vis-a-vis the phasing of the savings from the scheme. Initially, the savings will be modest. I give the Government credit for not rushing precipitately into abolition in September. I thank them for that because such timing would place a huge burden on schools and parents and would have caused complete chaos as parents scrambled for places elsewhere.
The consequences of the Government's timing are that there will be no savings at all this year. Only in the first year after the phasing out will there be a saving of about £13 million. I understand that at the peak the Government will save about £49 million a year. Therefore, these sums become available only slowly. How will the Government reconcile such phased savings with their class size objective? They need time to think about that, and the conclusion that they will have to reach is that they will need to go into the public expenditure pot more generally. I urge them to seize the opportunity that the amendments present.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is no longer in his place, made an important point about the need to maintain good relations between the independent and state sectors. One of the chief attractions of the assisted places scheme is that it has done precisely that. It has blurred the edges between the two systems and has prevented the sharp demarcation of "them" and "us" in education. It has made for better relationships between the two sectors. If the Government propose to press ahead with abolition of the assisted places scheme they will have to think about how those relationships can be maintained. I understand that Liberal Democrat Members may have some suggestions on that later in the debate.
We do not want ghettos of excellence in the independent sector that are entirely isolated from the rest of the education system. I was educated in a maintained grammar school that was very like Worcester Royal grammar school. Sadly, the drive to comprehensivisation drove Worcester Royal out of the state sector and into the independent sector against its wishes. I agree with any clever researcher sitting behind the Ministers who may say that it was a Conservative county council which voted for the transfer to comprehensive education in Worcestershire—more is the pity. That was done because of the great pressure of conventional educational wisdom at the time.
A sharp divide was introduced between the independent and state sectors, and that need not have been so. I deplore the fact that schools were forced to transfer across the boundary. I ask the Government to be open minded, original and thoughtful and to respond constructively to the amendments. They should say, "Yes, another year or so would help us to think about these issues in more detail." I am sure that they will say that they are still committed to the abolition of the assisted places scheme and I accept that, although I regret it. It is a fact which I shall have to live with. I again urge the Government to stop and think.

Mr. Boswell: I, too, support the amendment, to which my hon. Friends the Members for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) have spoken so eloquently. I do not think that I need to speak quite at the same length.
I should properly begin by declaring a personal interest in that, until last year, one of my daughters attended a school that availed itself of the assisted places scheme—although few hon. Members' children would qualify for an assisted place, and mine did not.
I put it strongly to the Government that the problem with their proposals—a problem that was identified in the Second Reading debate, in which I did not participate, is that the savings from them are very small. Savings would be made only if they were achieved on the basis of an average cost of funding the places. They would be very small, if not negative, if achieved on the basis of a marginal cost, yet moving such a number of children from the private to the state-maintained sector would have to be secured at a marginal cost. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire said, the savings would build up over time and would be tiny at the beginning. There is therefore a premium on proper planning. It would be sensible if the Government took time within their political pledge and their mandate, if they so regard it.
The Government should in particular consider the position of local education authorities because they need time to plan for the reprovision of places and the capital

costs that may apply, especially in cities such as Worcester, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire had the honour to represent, where there is a high concentration of independent schools that offer assisted places.
I see that my hon. Friend's successor, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), has just joined the debate. I know of his interest—which we all share—in education. If the Government want to do a good job by LEAs, they should take time to enable them to plan. Capital costs can be more easily accommodated over a planning period than they can if rushed into in an emergency to meet the duty to educate in the maintained sector.
Having said that, I am more generally conscious of the Bill's impact on education. We must consider the impact on not only institutions and authorities but individuals and the institutions that deliver education. Some of the impact on individuals—families and the children concerned—may be more properly explored in debates on subsequent amendments. I merely flag up my concern now, and I may wish to comment on those matters later.
I would very much like Ministers to consider the institutional impact in a couple of respects. The first is on the schools themselves. The impact is all very well in schools where there is a small minority of assisted places—2 per cent. is being quoted as the lowest participant—but very different for schools that offer 40 to 50 per cent. of their places under the assisted places scheme. There is a risk of destabilising good schools, making them unviable or facing them with some most unpalatable planning options in coping with the new situation. Time to think, plan and make alternative arrangements will soften that impact.
The second and more important impact goes to the heart of what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire said about the division between private and state sectors. Wherever we were educated, many of us were distressed by the outcome in practice of the move to comprehensivisation in the 1960s and 1970s. The move, it was argued, was so conceived as to try to bring children together, but actually succeeded in driving the sectors apart—not by destroying the private sector but by making it more exclusive and, to some extent, more remote from the state sector.

Providing time, within the context of policies for which the Government have a mandate, would enable the independent sector, especially schools offering assisted places, to plan and cope with the change. Of course, many of them, especially the strongest academically and those with the lowest participation in assisted places, could easily float through. They could go on being very successful independent schools almost as if nothing had happened, but something would have happened: the mix of the socio-economic base that had participated in the schools, from which, for example, my daughter benefited indirectly, would come to an end. Incidentally, my daughter never encountered any discrimination between the various children. I do not think that anybody knew who was on an assisted place or not. Ending such a mix would be wrong. I pray in aid George Walden, the former Member for Buckingham, who wrote most eloquently on the dangers of dividing those two sectors of education.
It would be much better to look at ways in which we can use the time set out in the amendment to enable schools, either individually or collectively, to try to


hammer out some arrangements so that they can obtain the social advantages of integration without the scheme to whose abolition the Government are committed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham has already mentioned that the Girls Public Day School Trust is considering the possibility of providing bursaries. That is very welcome. It is a strong organisation, of which I have a good deal of experience. Providing such bursaries may be more difficult for individual schools. Would it not be worth considering at, say, the average cost in the maintained sector, enabling a scheme to be set up whereby schools could offer bursaries with a state contribution—not over the odds or at excess cost but at equivalent cost—which could be used on condition that it levered in contributions from the private sector?
Such contributions to provide funds to support integration in education might come from one or two sources. One might be a charitable or, as it were, altruistic source. The Government might also consider whether it was possible—my experience is that to a very small extent it is—to top-slice the fees of fee-paying parents. I would not want to speculate on a figure, but if it were possible to raise some money through the school to provide bursaries—I suspect that many schools would want to do so anyway—and the Government were prepared to produce some viable scheme, they could achieve their social objective of ensuring that relatively affluent parents such as—let us make no bones about it—me and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, were chipping in to obtain the benefits of the integration that we all want.
I clearly remember the Secretary of State for Education and Employment enunciating on Second Reading his commitment to a greater partnership between the state and the private sector. The amendment centres on the need to find practical ways in which to advance such partnership. If the assisted places scheme is no longer acceptable to the Government, it is incumbent on them to take the time to enable those who are working in the sector to work out practical solutions which can no longer be in the same form but which deliver the same benefits. For that reason, I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. James Clappison: I strongly support the amendment. I make the same declaration as my hon. Friends. My principle concern is that assisted places are of great benefit to many of my constituents. I probably have as many, if not more, children who have taken up assisted places in my constituency than in any other constituency—400 from low-income families. My constituents would want me to support the amendment because the longer that the scheme remains in place, the longer such opportunities are available for future generations of parents and children. The benefits are real.
There is no deficiency in any way in the maintained sector in my constituency. We have secondary schools that perform with considerable distinction and have been given national recognition for what they have achieved. They offer a high quality of education and do well by any objective measure of performance.
The schools to which the assisted places children go are of national, if not international, importance, and offer an extremely high quality of academic education. Most of the

assisted places in my constituency are at the Haberdashers' Aske's school, which has 230 assisted places out of a total of 1,300 places at the school. I know that this is of interest to the Minister because he once did some analysis of the assisted places scheme, and he included Haberdashers' Aske's in a list of schools that he said were receiving a subsidy from the assisted places scheme.
That is an interesting idea of what constitutes a subsidy, because I understand from the headmaster of that school that there are 450 applicants for 100 places. Of course, the school could fill the places occupied by children with assisted places many times over with parents paying full fees. It is not in any way, shape or form a subsidy for the school. It is a subsidy for the parents and children who would not otherwise be able to enjoy those opportunities.

5 pm

Mr. Lidington: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not mind me reminding him that when the direct grant was withdrawn from Haberdashers' Aske's and other schools by a previous Labour Government, the school had no trouble recruiting more than enough pupils to fill every place available several times over. The big difference was that those places could, in those new circumstances, be made available only to children of well-to-do parents. If the school, as well as the parents, were opposed to those changes—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That intervention is far too long. Also, the amendment is about the date of operation, not the qualities of a school or what children it is prepared to take in. We must talk about the date of operation.

Mr. Clappison: In spite of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) may have been slightly out of order, he is a great advertisement for that school.
My point is that, the longer the scheme remains in operation, the longer the opportunities will be available for children in my constituency. I am trying to counter the argument that has been advanced by the Government many times, which is that perfectly good opportunities are available at other schools. I will not go into further detail about schools in my constituency except to say that Haberdashers' Aske's school for girls—I do not wish to be sexist—offers an equally high quality of education and is equally highly oversubscribed. There are other very good schools such as St. Margaret's in Bushey and Aldenham school.
Labour Members will be interested to know that, not far from my constituency, there are other independent schools offering a high-quality of education such as St. Alban's high school for girls and Haileybury school. Labour Members will be interested to know that, until recently, Haileybury was the only public school to have educated a Labour Prime Minister. I am not sure that that Prime Minister, Earl Attlee, would have been in favour of the proposal. My understanding is that the founding fathers of the Labour party and the early Labour Ministers and Prime Ministers were in favour of throwing open the doors of great institutions and providing opportunities for members of the lower-income classes.
The Government's justification for phasing out the assisted places scheme within this time scale is that they want the money to reduce the class sizes of five, six and


seven-year-olds. I do not want to go into the argument about the validity of the assumption about class sizes, but the Minister's interpretation of the Ofsted report in his reply on Second Reading was interesting. He said that the Ofsted inspector had conducted an analysis of class sizes and was in favour of smaller classes. The Minister gave that as the principal justification for the Bill, but it is based upon an ambitious interpretation of the report. I note that the press release for the Ofsted report states:
Ofsted finds no clear link between class size and lesson quality.
If the Minister examines carefully the conclusions of that report, particularly paragraphs 90 and 91, he will find that it states:
The main finding of the Report, that reductions in class size do not necessarily lead to better teaching and higher standards, suggests, however, that schools should not automatically seek to use new resources to reduce class size.
The report recognises that, where the resources are used to reduce class sizes, it is most appropriate to do that for children of earlier ages, but it does not come to the conclusion that that is necessarily the most effective way to spend the money. In fact, it seems to point in the opposite direction and suggest that it is more important to look at other things such as teacher quality and performance.
I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to say a little about the financial justification for the early phasing out. We are told that, the sooner the assisted places scheme is phased out, the sooner the Government can spend the money on reducing class sizes. I remind the Minister of the promise made by Labour in its manifesto. It is the basis on which the Government have put the Bill before the House and the basis on which the Labour party went to the country. It says:
We will reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 or under, by phasing out the assisted places scheme, the cost of which is set to rise to £180 million per year.
In other words, the Labour party was putting this forward as a straightforward reallocation of resources which would be sufficient to pay for reducing class sizes. Anybody who read that might have taken a different view if they had been told at the same time, "By the way, we do not think that enough money will be raised by phasing out the assisted places scheme, and we will have to reallocate money from other things as well." The Minister will be well aware that the Government have pledged to stay within education spending targets for his Department so that any other money being used to reduce class sizes would have to come from somewhere else such as secondary or higher education. The Minister is trapped within that straitjacket. That puts a different complexion on the Government's promise.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will my hon Friend reflect on the fact that a delay of three years in the implementation of the Bill would give the Government an opportunity to plan public expenditure properly beyond the ambit of the present planning timetable?

Mr. Clappison: That is an important point, and many of my constituents would agree with it.
I want the Minister to tell us whether he still maintains that the savings from the assisted places scheme will be sufficient in themselves to pay for the reduction in class

sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. He seemed to be tip-toeing away from that proposition in his reply to the debate on Second Reading. I should like him to address that question specifically and say whether, in his view, the savings will be sufficient.
We have been told by the Government that they estimate that £100 million will be saved by 2000 by phasing out the assisted places scheme. That is the justification for the early phasing out. We have yet to know from the Government what will be the cost of reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. I asked the Government that in a written question and, in view of what was said earlier, I feel quite honoured because I have had an answer. However, I was told that the Government do not have a clue what the cost will be, so I was not much better informed.

Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have been silent on any mechanism by which they can enforce the reduction of class sizes because there is no such mechanism in the local government finance settlement?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We must keep to the terms of the amendment. Class size reductions and other matters are for other amendments. We must keep to the date of operation. If hon. Members are exhausting the argument, the thing to do is to dispose of this amendment and move on to something else.

Mr. Clappison: I am bound by your ruling, Mr. Martin, but I would like the Government to deal with the question of the early phasing out and what resources it will make available. I ask the Minister that specific question, because my constituents will be interested in his answer. They have been told that they will have to sacrifice the assisted places that offer them so many opportunities, so that reductions in class sizes can be made in the manner described by the Government.

Mr. Lansley: In South Cambridgeshire, the constituency which I am privileged to represent, we have a number of schools with assisted places. It would be very much to the benefit of parents who have children in assisted places in those schools if the Committee passed this group of amendments, thereby delaying by three years the coming into operation of the Bill.
There would be several benefits in such a delay. The first—which I hope that we shall discuss in greater detail—is that a three-year delay would significantly reduce the number of siblings of students in assisted places who would not be able to follow their older brothers or sisters to the same school. Moreover, parents would not be placed in the invidious and often very inconvenient and costly position of placing children in a different school, which may have a different ethos, orientation or geographical location.
St. Mary's school, in South Cambridgeshire, illustrates the second reason why delay would be advantageous. It is the only school available to parents in my constituency who want their children to be educated in a single-sex school—in this example, a girls' school—with a Catholic orientation. If assisted places were not available at St. Mary's for parents who want to send their children to a Catholic school in the maintained sector, no other school with the same character would be available.
It may not be possible, even if the Committee were to accept the additional delay proposed by this group of amendments, for the maintained sector to provide the same types of diversity. It is very unlikely, however, that the grant-maintained sector—or the voluntary-aided sector, in the case of St. Mary's—would be able to provide the same types of diversity in the time allowed by the Bill. A three-year delay, which may seem extravagant to some people, is not a long period in which to change a school's character, orientation and its ability to offer additional places offering a specific type of education, thereby enabling parents to make a choice.
The third reason why there should be greater delay in implementing the Bill's provisions is that parents with children in assisted places hold considerable expectations that their children will be able to keep those places until they finish their education. Parents of children at St. Faith's school, which is in my constituency, have such an expectation. St. Faith's and the Leys school are linked and are essentially the same school, holding the same charity number, and children at St. Faith's who are almost 11 had a reasonable expectation of continuing their education in assisted places, at the Leys school, until they reached 18. Under the Bill's current provisions, however, they would lose that place in the year in which they were 10 years and six months. That not only denies their reasonable expectation of continuing their education in an assisted place to the age of 18 but curtails their expectation of continuing at St. Faith's, which educates children to the age of 13.
5.15 pm
Delaying the implementation of the Bill by three years would enable a significant proportion of children in assisted places at St. Faith's to complete their education at that school. Delay would not fulfil the reasonable expectations parents had when their children first took up a place in an assisted places school, but it would at least give parents an opportunity to plan ahead to their children's education at 13, when, through common entrance examinations, they would be able to take places elsewhere.
The Department for Education and Employment dispatched a letter to schools with assisted places, in which Ministers made it perfectly clear that parents with children in assisted places who expected to continue their education in the same school until age 13 were to be disappointed. A particular grievance of the parents and schools who will be affected is that, on 1 April 1997, the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service—who was then Labour's schools spokesman—wrote to the chairman of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools, stating that places would be honoured until age 13. The letter from the Department, however, writes that support would be extended
to ease integration into the maintained sector in those areas where the normal age of transfer is later than age 11.
That will deny children's reasonable expectations.
Conservative Members have already mentioned the fourth reason for delay, but I should like to elaborate on it. In the maintained sector, it is difficult to plan the transfer of pupils from the independent sector and assisted places into the maintained sector. Moreover, I suspect that

the Government have little information about where parents with children in assisted places would like to send them in the maintained sector.
During the general election campaign, I visited St. Mary's school and talked to many children in assisted places who were doing extremely well under the scheme. I asked them which school their parents would like them to attend if they did not have an assisted place. In many cases, they said that, because of their parents' desire for them to attend a single-sex school, the alternative would not have been the school closest to their homes but perhaps the Herts and Essex high school, in Bishop's Stortford, which is a considerable distance from their homes.
It does not automatically follow that local education authorities in areas with assisted places will be the authorities that provide places for children leaving assisted places. It is therefore very important that hon. Members are given time to learn what choices parents will have, where parents are likely to send their children and where additional places will be provided.
The Government make much of surplus places, but those places may not be in the areas to which parents want to send their children. It is regrettable if the Government were proposing that parents of children on assisted places should be required to send their children to schools with surplus places, because those parents have the same rights of choice as other parents. There may therefore be additional pressure on currently over-subscribed schools—which brings me back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), that there may be implications not only for revenue expenditure but for capital expenditure in the maintained sector.
The final reason for delay is that the Government do not have a formula for distributing the resources that would be released from abolition of the assisted places scheme. They have not consulted on any such formula, and there are considerable reservations and concerns among schools in my constituency about how that aspect of abolition will be implemented. It may well be that the released resources will be relatively small compared to overall resources in the education budget.
When the Minister was on the "Today" programme, he referred to this Bill as the reduction of class sizes Bill. If the additional resources are to be released only where schools have class sizes in excess of 30 pupil, the Government may miss out on what is, in the judgment of schools and education authorities, the most educationally advantageous distribution of resources.
In South Cambridgeshire, for example, some schools that have about 30 pupils in a class are able to maintain a high standard of education, despite the difficult circumstances. They struggle under less difficult circumstances than some village and rural schools that might not have 30 children in a class, but have to deal with more than one age in a class. Children of five, six, seven and even eight are together in one class.
We surely all recognise that, in those circumstances, it is important to give teachers the opportunity to have classes in which they can undertake differentiated teaching relevant not only to different abilities, but to different ages. A mature judgment may be that, in educational terms and for the benefit of children, it is sometimes better to make greater resources available to


village schools that have to deal with different ages and abilities in the same classroom, rather than to focus on the limited aspect of the absolute number of children in a particular class. That is especially true in South Cambridgeshire, which combines the urban schools of Cambridge city and the village schools beyond.
Those are all good reasons for delay, but they are reasons that the Government do not appear to have taken into consideration. That shows the undue and unreasonable haste with which the Government are trying to push through the Bill before any of the questions have been adequately answered.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). It is clear that he has a good grasp of the education sector.
I should be grateful to know, Mr. Martin, whether you expect me to keep strictly to the group of amendments, or whether you will allow a wider debate now and then a short debate on clause stand part. I shall temper my remarks according to your advice.

The First Deputy Chairman: I should not have to educate hon. Members on procedure—they should know the rules before they participate in the Committee. The amendments are clearly laid down and are restricted to certain matters. The hon. Gentleman should speak to them. If he is out of order, I shall soon tell him so.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Martin; it is most helpful.
A great deal has already been said on this group of amendments, so I shall make just three brief points—first, the financial effect of the Bill; secondly, the disruption for the pupils involves; and, thirdly, the effect on the viability of the independent schools.
I want to deal, first, with the general principle of the Bill in regard to the savings from the abolition of the assisted places scheme and the cost of reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. The amendments make a great deal of sense. I do not believe that, under the proposed timetable, the Government have correctly assessed the financial effect on the public expenditure round. The are a number of points about that, some of which have already been made and some which have not.
I do not believe that the savings from the abolition of the scheme will be £100 million; I think that they will be a great deal less. Furthermore, I believe that the cost of reducing class sizes will greatly outweigh any savings. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said, the marginal cost of establishing extra places in the maintained sector can be very great. For example, if a new building is needed to house two, three or even a dozen additional pupils, the cost could be high. It would be slightly less in revenue costs if a new teacher had to be employed.
I wonder whether the Government have done their sums correctly. The Institute of Public Finance says that the net cost of reducing class sizes—over and above the savings from abolishing the assisted places scheme—will be about £150 million, and that assumes that the Government's savings estimate of £100 million is correct. Therefore, it makes a great deal of sense to delay the implementation of the Bill on financial grounds, if on no others.
Secondly, to minimise the disruption for pupils it would be sensible to allow all pupils currently involved in the scheme to finish their education at the schools they attend. It is dogma to take pupils away from their schools in the middle of their education and move them to different schools. Anyone who has been involved in that exercise, as I was when I was adopted as a prospective parliamentary candidate, knows that changing children from one school to another is disruptive. However bright the child, it sets back his or her progress in the new school. Therefore, I urge that the amendments are accepted so that disruption can be avoided.
My third brief point—before you call me to order, Mr. Martin—relates to the viability of the private sector schools that will be affected. In every one of the five years that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have tried to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) that St. Edward's school—an excellent school in my constituency—was up to the required standard to qualify for the scheme. I was always told that there were many more schools applying for places than there was finance, or even Government inclination to provide.
However, I was finally able to persuade my hon. Friend. The school has made huge improvements in its standards and has now been granted a number of assisted places, which will be removed in the next year or so. There should be a special concession for schools that have just been brought into the scheme—

Mr. Don Foster: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, without assisted places money, some independent schools would no longer be viable? If so, it is in marked contradiction to the previous Government's stated view.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the third of my categories, so perhaps he will be patient and listen.
I ask the Minister to consider whether some extension could be given to schools that have joined the scheme in the last year so that they have time to replan their finances.
My answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is that obviously schools that have a block of pupils and a block of finance withdrawn will experience disruption. Any school—from Eton downwards—will suffer from that. For some smaller schools, the withdrawal of pupils and finance could threaten their viability because a number of factors affecting private schools have come into play in recent years.
The general economic climate during the recession severely affected many private schools. Some of the more successful schools have gone out into the world and marketed themselves not just in this country but abroad and have successfully rebuilt their pupil numbers. Other schools, however, are still struggling and the Government should allow them more time to find other forms of finance.
It has already been said that a certain body may be prepared to establish scholarships for private schools. The Labour party, with its financial hat on, thinks that the cost of educating assisted places pupils is higher than the cost in the maintained sector. That is not necessarily the case. The average cost of an assisted place in the scheme is


£3,900. The average cost in many secondary schools in London and elsewhere is higher than that, so the strict financial argument does not necessarily make sense. That aside, it is reasonable to allow the private institutions time to reorganise their finances. There are a number of possible sources of finance that they could tap, including establishing scholarships and sponsorship from industry or special research establishments. No doubt they could think of many more.
There is a good case for accepting these reasonable amendments. I hope that the Government will consider them sensibly.

Mrs. Theresa May: I echo the arguments of my hon. Friends for a delay in the implementation of the Bill. I should genuinely like to be constructive and help the Government, to pick up on a point alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley).
In opposition and during the election campaign, the Labour party always linked the abolition of the assisted places scheme with a reduction in primary school class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. If the Bill is passed under the current timetable, parents will see the abolition of the assisted places scheme, but no reduction in primary school class sizes. The Government will find it difficult to manage the expectations of those parents. I understand that the Minister for School Standards has described the Bill as the reduction in class sizes Bill. Parents will ask, "Why, when you have removed the assisted places scheme, is my child still in a class of 32, 33 or 34? You said that you were going to reduce class sizes. Why is that not happening?"
It is in the Government's interests to take time to stop and think about the proper implementation of every aspect of the Bill, as my hon. Friends have argued, including the reduction in class sizes. What will the mechanism be for that? How will it be achieved? How will local education authorities be encouraged to carry out the Government's aim? Many other issues relate to that, including appeals bodies and popular schools. It is in the Government's interests to delay implementation and use the time to stop and think. When they put the measure through they can ensure that both sides of the policy come into effect at the same time, not one without the other. That would also be in the interests of parents.

Mr. Eric Forth>: I am impressed by my hon. Friend's genuine attempt to help the Government, which demonstrates her generosity of spirit. She is asking the Government to stop and think about this important issue, but does she have any reason to suppose, given the Government's track record to date, that they are likely to stop and think about anything, let alone this issue?

Mrs. May: I thank my hon. Friend for that interruption. [Interruption.] Sorry, intervention. Sitting down for the first time in the House is always risky. I am afraid that I have little expectation that the Government will listen to my advice because so far they have shown a remarkable reluctance to stop and think about any of their measures.

Rather, they are showing arrogance in pushing through measures without thinking thoroughly about their practical implications. That is a real concern not just to hon. Members, but to local education authorities, teachers, parents and children, who will suffer from the measure being passed hastily, as is proposed.
I should also like to pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). Another reason for delay is the real need to ensure that local education authorities can plan properly for the increased number of children that they will have to accommodate in their schools. When I was a local councilor—I am sure that this experience is shared by hon. Members who have been local councilors—a frequent complaint, particularly on the education committee, was that the Government did not give councillors sufficient time to think through and plan for changes.
The Labour councillors on my education committee told me not to worry, because everything would be all right under a Labour Government. How wrong they were. The Government are pushing legislation through arrogantly without properly considering the implications for local education authorities. I urge the Government to take time, stop and think, and show good faith with local councillors.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is making a valuable point. She may know that the Government have said that existing surplus places will be filled by the children leaving the assisted places scheme. Does she agree that it is important in her area, as it is in mine, to see whether the surplus places match up to where the assisted places are? In my Hertfordshire constituency, most secondary schools are bulging at the seams.

Mrs. May: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right. Having been involved in an education authority, I know that one of the greatest problems is matching where parents want their children to go to school and where there are surplus places. It is imperative that local education authorities are given time to plan properly, to assess the impact and to ensure that they can continue to provide parental choice to the extent that we want.
My final point ties in with the problems of planning for local authorities. Local social services departments, as well as local education authorities, will have to prepare for the implementation of the Bill. I do not think that the Government have properly considered that. I urge them to accept the proposals for delay so that they can do that. Some children are helped by the assisted places scheme to have boarding school education because of genuine social difficulties or problematic family backgrounds. I have spoken to the chairman of one of the charitable foundations that makes use of the scheme to help children from families with such difficulties to have boarding school education. He said to me, "I mind if the assisted places scheme goes, because I mind about the children."
I understand that those foundations were having constructive discussions before the election with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). They have also made representations to the Minister about the problem, encouraging him to find a way of continuing to allow such children to be provided with boarding school education even if the assisted places scheme is to go.
I urge the Minister to think about those children in genuine social need. They must find a way to provide for them. That cannot be done with the current timetable. The Government must stop and think, accept the amendments and give themselves time to work with the private sector and the charitable foundations to find a way to help children in genuine need. If the Government do not accept the amendments, they will turn their backs on those children.

Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made a forceful speech, putting her points very well. I, too, find it astonishing that the Government are pressing ahead with such undue haste. Their proposals for reductions in class sizes, intended as a consequence of the Bill, appear to be muddled and ill thought out.
It is incredible that the Government have so far given no convincing explanation of why they are determined to override the provisions for delay in existing legislation. Schedule 35 of the Education Act 1996 says:
The proprietors of the school may terminate a participation agreement by giving three years' written notice to the Secretary of State
and that Secretary of State may do the same with the same period of notice. Those arrangements are there for a good reason. The school taking part in the assisted places scheme, the families involved and the maintained schools that might have to take in additional children when assisted places are no longer available need time to adjust. For the Government to press ahead so precipitately only makes life much more difficult for the families and organisations most directly involved.
We know from the helpful note published by the Library something about the distribution of assisted places among education authorities across the kingdom. However, we do not know how many pupils each local education authority is likely to have to deal with as a consequence of the Government's proposals. The Government owe it to LEAs to allow a period of delay, as proposed in the amendment, so that LEAs can see how their areas will be affected and then make proposals to furnish adequate education for the additional pupils with whom they will be expected to cope.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the uneven distribution of the assisted places, in addition to the possible problems of population expansion in certain areas, will put severe strain on LEAs? Hampshire, for example, has 1,500 children on the assisted places scheme.

Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a very telling point. It is true that areas such as Hampshire and south Hertfordshire—my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) referred to the latter—and, I suspect, Cheshire on the fringes of the Greater Manchester conurbation, are likely to experience severe problems in providing educational accommodation for pupils displaced from the assisted places scheme.
We know from studies undertaken by the Institute of Public Finance that the savings claimed by the Government are pretty bogus. Indeed, even Ministers are now very half-hearted in their defence of the arithmetic that they put to the electorate in recent weeks. However,

I shall focus on the likely capital cost of the abolition of the assisted places scheme—a matter that is very pertinent to the amendments that call for a delay in the implementation of the proposals.
The Institute of Public Finance has estimated that cost as approximately £100 million. Of course, we have no idea how the capital cost would be spread among the various local education authorities, and one compelling reason for urging delay is to give the Government time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said, to consult local education authorities so that the apportionment of the capital costs can be properly calculated.
We all know from our constituency experience that when a local education authority talks about the need to provide extra school places, it is not simply a matter of passing a resolution in the education committee. The LEA has to seek borrowing approval from the Department for Education and Employment, and that can take quite a long time. It also needs to seek planning permission from the appropriate planning authority.

Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that a number of legal procedures must be gone through, which in my experience in the Department are often very protracted? I am thinking of, for example, the setting of the maximum admission number. Such matters have to be properly sorted out.

Mr. Lidington: That is another extremely valid point, which again shows how ill prepared Ministers have been in trying to rush the scheme so precipitately.
Before my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) intervened, I was talking about the need to seek planning permission. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham and I know of schools in our county that are located in the middle of the green belt. The planning authorities are very cautious about allowing the construction of extra school buildings because they wish to keep those areas as green as possible. Other schools in my constituency are heavily oversubscribed but are in urban areas where it would be difficult to find extra land on which to put new classrooms or laboratories without severely reducing the space available for playing fields or for other activities integral to the life of the schools.

Mr. Michael Colvin: My hon. Friend and other colleagues have referred to the final report of the Institute of Public Finance on the cost of reducing class sizes, but no one has yet got down to the specific net cost of doing so, taking into account the capital and revenue cost. We have to add the two together and consider the net cost over time and the on-going cost thereafter. It is significant that in the first five years of the proposals being in operation, the average net cost, taking into account all the savings resulting from the abolition of the assisted places scheme, is on average £45 million a year and thereafter £16 million a year ad infinitum. That is something that the Government have not taken into account but which they should.

Mr. Lidington: I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct when he says that the Government have not taken that into account. Another reason for urging delay is to allow Ministers time to take advice and consult their colleagues


in other Departments, most notably the Treasury, on how they can possibly deal with the problems that my hon. Friend highlights.

Mr. Colvin: I should perhaps have mentioned in my previous intervention that the data on which the figures are based come from the Department for Education and Employment, although the report was commissioned by independent schools. The figures have not been conjured up out of the air to support a particular case; they are the Government's own figures.

Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That suggests that perhaps Ministers were not ignorant after all of the consequences of rushing the proposal but that they are rather shy of explaining in detail to the House how they propose to deal with the consequences of their policy.
I referred earlier to the delays caused to local authorities' providing extra classrooms by the need to seek planning permission. Of course, that is only the first hurdle. Applications may go to appeal, which leads to further delay. LEAs then have to seek tenders and appoint contractors; only then would building begin. I suspect that there would be at least a couple of years between a local authority realising that the abolition of the assisted places scheme required it to provide additional classrooms in particular schools and that LEA being in a position to bring those classrooms on stream to accommodate the additional pupils. That is yet another reason for the Government to reflect and take advantage of the delay that the amendment would allow them.
The Bill's impact would not be restricted to LEAs. Another important reason for allowing a period for thought is, as one or two of my hon. Friends have suggested, to allow schools that at present participate in the assisted places scheme to launch appeals to raise money for bursaries to enable the academically gifted children who can currently take advantage of the scheme to continue to benefit from the education in those schools.
I know from my experience and my conversations with the head teachers of some of the schools that they are, in the main, wholly committed to allowing greater access to the sort of education that they can provide at their independent schools to pupils from a wide variety of backgrounds. It is a matter of great regret that the Government, rather than seeking a new dialogue with the independent sector and rather than trying to find ways in which to enhance that partnership and create more places in independent schools for pupils from relatively poor families, should instead try to knock down the ladder and deny those opportunities. That strikes me as dogma triumphing over education common sense.
The third reason for delay is to allow pupils, parents and schools to know in detail what the Government propose for them in the immediate future. Later tonight I am sure that we will have the opportunity during our debates on clause 3 to discuss the arrangements for the regulations that the Government propose. The amendments to those proposed regulations are relevant. As the Bill is presented to us, Parliament is being asked to approve the abolition of the assisted places scheme and to give the Government an enabling power to introduce transitional regulations to deal with pupils who currently benefit from assisted places without Parliament having sight of those regulations, even in draft form.
I recall attending various Standing Committees in the previous Parliament where Labour Member after Labour Member rose in his place to say that it was disgraceful that there should be any thought of giving a Minister the power to act through secondary legislation without that legislation being available, at least in draft form, for the Standing Committee to examine and debate. I hope that the Government will be prepared, even now, to accept the opportunity for reflection that the amendments provide and to introduce draft regulations so that Parliament can consider them alongside the Bill. That strikes me as being only fair to the schools, parents and pupils.

Mr. Graham Brady: Conservative Members have advanced many compelling arguments as to why there should be a delay in implementation. The most compelling arguments, and those to which I should like to return, relate to the simple human consequences of the Bill. There is a mismatch in what the Government are setting out and there is something missing from the logic of their proposals. They say that they wish to remove the assisted places scheme and, instead, reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds, but there is no correlation between the benefits that may be achieved by the one action and the damage done by the other.
I am concerned that, by removing assisted places for children, whatever their age and whatever their stage in the educational process, the Government are taking something away and not replacing it. I speak as someone who is fortunate enough to represent a constituency with good schools. Pupils from my constituency who go to independent schools on assisted places—mostly in Manchester—do so, unless they have specific religious or other reasons, mainly through choice rather than necessity. If those places did not exist, and provided there was an increase in the number of places available at the schools in my constituency, those pupils would not lose out too much, but that, of itself, raises a major concern.
Many of the excellent schools in my constituency—the grammar schools and the high schools, many of which are grant-maintained—have asked for funding to increase their size so that they can take more pupils. They are already bursting at the seams and the proposal to remove assisted places will result in increased demand for places at them. What is proposed will not provide any further capital funding for the expansion of those schools or necessarily provide more places in terms of teaching capacity in secondary schools. There is a mismatch within the proposals, and we need more time for consideration.
I am thinking particularly of pupils who do not live in my constituency. We are on the fringes of Manchester. There are good schools in the borough of Trafford, which have been maintained and nurtured over the years by what has generally been, and will soon be again, a good local education authority; but what about children across the city of Manchester who currently have little recourse to good education beyond the assisted places scheme?
There are 300 pupils on assisted places at Manchester grammar school and 242 at William Hulme's grammar school. What is to be done to provide new educational opportunities for the individual children who will lose the opportunities they currently enjoy? When we consider the state of affairs in many areas of Manchester it becomes plain that local schools are not good enough to provide genuine opportunities and alternatives. I should like to hear some guarantees on that issue.
Another argument for delay that has been advanced concerns the importance of allowing schools such as Manchester grammar, which is trying hard to raise funds to provide bursaries for pupils who are currently on assisted places, to find alternative funding to ensure that the education of those pupils is not interrupted, and to continue the centuries-old tradition of providing free education for pupils from poorer backgrounds.
The position of pupils who are currently on assisted places in independent schools is crucial. I should like to bring the argument down to an individual level. What about those children? We have heard grand, seductive statements about reducing class sizes, but that will occur only after a period of years. The reduction will depend on capital expenditure, and the Government have not stated clearly where that money will come from. Even when class sizes are reduced, that move will affect only a small part of the school population. That fact will not provide comfort to families in my constituency or across the city of Manchester who currently benefit from the assisted places scheme.
Other parents and pupils will be similarly affected owing to the pressures that will be placed on state schools in my constituency. I should like to hear some guarantees. What will happen to those schools? How can we guarantee that they will have more places? There are good schools and they want to expand, but they need money to do so. That money will not come from the abolition of the assisted places scheme as it has been made clear that the money has been hypothecated to reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. That is one of my major concerns.
I should like a further guarantee for children who currently enjoy assisted places in independent schools in Manchester or elsewhere: that they will not lose their places until other places become available to them in acceptable state schools nearby. Assisted places could be removed from pupils, and the nearby state schools, even were they of an adequate standard, might not have available places owing to capacity constraints. That scenario seems likely: the Government say that they will reduce class sizes, but how can they do so without a major programme of capital expenditure, if not by limiting the rolls of, and admissions to, popular schools? If admissions are limited and school sizes reduced or pegged at a certain level, I cannot see that the Government can guarantee places in local schools for pupils who are currently on assisted places. I would very much welcome some guarantees on that.

Mr. John Hayes: I want to dwell on the timing aspect of the amendments. Had the Government gone in for calmer and wiser reflection, the Bill would not have been rushed in as a wholly negative piece of legislation. The fact that the first education legislation proposed by the new Government contains such a negative and pernicious set of proposals will be judged harshly by historians and, I dare say, regretted in the fulness of time by many Labour Members.
The Government should have taken the assisted places scheme, built on it and developed it. It is entirely natural and acceptable that a new Government should have a different perspective—that is in the nature of the democratic process. A new Government will arrive with fresh ideas and a new approach; but to abandon the scheme completely seems most undesirable. Indeed, it is not worthy of the Labour party or the House.
In the heady and excited atmosphere that prevails among Labour Members—one can hardly blame them for that—a certain lack of calm, studied reflection has delivered a hasty, harsh and extreme proposal.
6 pm
Our country has a long tradition of scholarships, bursaries and assisted places—in short, an approach that has allowed poor children from working-class families to enjoy an education that they would not have had without financial assistance. That tradition is embodied in my own home. I happen to live in a house that used to be part of a grammar school that was founded in the first Elizabethan age on the principle of giving poor children a better education. It is a principle with which I would expect many socialists and Labour party members to have some sympathy, but these proposals pay no heed to that long and noble tradition.
The Bill is a class sizes Bill. Abolishing assisted places has been seen as a way of facilitating the smaller classes that were a key part of the proposals that the Labour party put to the electorate. The proposal certainly found some resonance with the electorate: people bought the argument lock, stock and barrel. They believed that classes needed reducing and that the Labour party would bring that about.
This approach has three problems. First, smaller classes have been presented as a panacea that will deliver automatic short-term benefits. I notice Labour Members shaking their heads at that suggestion. It may not have been explicitly presented in that way, but it has certainly been presented in that way by allusion, suggestion and implication. That in turn has raised expectations that cannot be met.
There will be no automatic or direct benefit solely from reducing class sizes. Quite apart from the logistical problems, even if classes are reduced in the way suggested by the Labour Government there will be no immediate tangible benefits of the kind that many people have been led to expect. That is the problem with raising expectations that cannot be fulfilled.
Secondly, the concentration on smaller classes has eradicated from public consciousness all the other factors that affect children's performance at school. As I said on Second Reading, many of those factors are just as important as class size and some may be even more important—the jury is still out. There is a paucity of empirical information, but it is certainly arguable that many other factors are just as important as class size. I shall not go through them this evening, but we all know what they are. Relegating all these other issues to the sidelines and concentrating on class size as the panacea for delivering enhanced teaching and pupil performance has had a misleading effect.
Thirdly, class size is usually debated in the context of a didactic pedagogic model. People think of a teacher standing in front of a class, teaching by exposition and instruction. These days, however, most teaching in schools is not like that. It is more of an exchange between the teacher and the taught; the relationship between the teacher and the taught is changing, as is the role of the teacher.
I could take hon. Members to any one of 50 schools in Britain where class size in the traditional sense is not an issue because of changing group organisation and because of changes in the manipulation and use of information. It


is easy to forget, when concentrating on class size, that teachers and learners are interacting differently. Schools operate differently, and the way people gather, exchange and use information is different, too. A range of technologies has changed our gathering, exchange and use of information in education, in the House and in the world of work. If we fail to grasp that fact and take advantage of it, we shall sacrifice one means of improving the education process. We shall also fail to prepare children adequately for the world of work.
Several of my hon. Friends have already made a point that perhaps needs amplifying. It concerns—time is critical in this context too—the impact of abolition of the assisted places scheme on other schools. We have only limited published information so far on the mechanisms by which these children are to be absorbed into other schools, and that information is unclear and rather dubious. The costs, too, are unclear. Several of my hon. Friends have asked questions about the arithmetic governing the process.
For me, the most important point concerns the effect on the schools. The National Association of Head Teachers has not always been particularly friendly to the Conservative party, but even that body acknowledges that this move will inevitably limit choice. To keep class sizes down, popular schools will have to restrict admissions. Moreover, in some areas—this will differ from region to region—a large number of children will have to be absorbed into state schools.
As a result, a child who currently expects an assisted place will not get their first choice, because that would have been the assisted places scheme school. They probably will not even get their second choice, because that will be the popular school that now cannot admit them because its admission level has had to be lowered to keep class sizes down. They may end up with their third or fourth choice of school. That may be one of the many unpopular schools, where there has not been essential rationalisation of provision by the LEA—I think of my LEA in that respect—which has numerous surplus places.
The Bill will therefore be used as a way to soak up surplus places in unpopular schools. That is a serious implication. The Government have not fully explored it and they certainly have not fully justified it. Popular schools will be obliged to admit fewer children, private schools will no longer be able to offer an assisted place, and less popular schools will soak up the children who do not want to be there and whose parents have had their options limited.

Mr. Colvin: That point is clearly made in the Institute of Public Finance report. On page 2, in a paragraph headed, "Eliminating Infant Classes over 30", it says:
Where there is no local shortage of places, and schools are reasonably close, the change could be implemented simply by re-distributing admissions from schools with larger classes to schools with smaller classes. No new teachers or classes would be needed.

However, to bring that about, we would have to return to the bad old days of direction, which we had under previous Labour Governments. People would be told, "Because you live in this area, your children will attend that school," and there would be no question of choice.

Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend highlights the history of admissions. Hon. Members will remember that the previous Government freed up admissions. That did not mean that everyone got their first choice—Labour Members said that, as everyone did not get their first choice, no one should have a choice—but it meant that, as schools were able to expand to take in more pupils, many more got their first choice of school than did under the previous Labour Government. Under Labour, admission limits were set rigidly, in a way that frustrated choice, propped up bad schools and limited the flexibility of heads and governors in admissions.
My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the fact that we will return to those "bad old days" as a direct consequence of this proposal. Obviously the consequence is not being headlined by the Government because it will be deeply unpopular with the many children who will be affected.

Mr. Colvin: Old Labour.

Mr. Hayes: It may be old Labour; I would not want to suggest it. It could be old Labour resurfacing.
The private schools will be affected. I am a grammar school boy, so I have no vested interest in private education, but it seems to me that the private schools that will be affected are bound to be detrimentally affected. It is an open point whether they will be financially damaged, and I do not have the expertise to offer a view. Some have said that it will affect some of the smaller schools and may impact on their future; others have said that they will be able to make up the difference and that it will not be a problem.
Whatever happens, the Bill will change the character of private schools' admissions and limit the diversity of pupils. That is unhealthy and undesirable, and it flies in the face of the tradition of a range of people being educated in one school, with all the social and cultural benefits that accrue from such an experience. In that sense, the Bill will damage those schools.
When people think of private schools, they always think of the "Tom Brown's Schooldays" type of school—the grand public schools, the great schools. They do not remember that many of the most radical schools in the education system could have flourished only in the private sector. Would A. S. Neill's Summerhill or the Rudolf Steiner schools have existed under an LEA? Of course not. We should have a broader, more wide-ranging view about the impact that the Bill might have on the private sector and the relationship between the private sector and new ideas and the evolution and development of education.
With hindsight and on calm reflection, the Government will regret the fact that their first piece of legislation was negative. I believe that history will judge harshly the fact that their first Bill was an attack on the poor—on people who cannot afford to pay. One might argue that it is ironic and surprising that a new Labour Government's first piece of education legislation should be an attack on the poor; or perhaps it is not ironic and it is no surprise.

Mr. Keith Simpson: I shall start by going to the nub of the Bill and supporting my hon. Friends' amendments proposing a delay. Broadly speaking, the Bill is a dog's breakfast. It is wrong on a point of principle. I remind hon. Members of what Reginald Brent, second Viscount Esher, a Liberal politician and great constitutionalist, a man who knew a lot about Parliament, said:
The moment that—in a great controversy—a politician finds himself struggling, not for a principle, but for an expedient—his battle is half lost.
The present Government have not half lost it, but lost it completely.
Is there not a certain irony in the fact that, in the past two or three weeks, Minister after Minister has offered a review whenever an issue appears complex or difficult? We have more reviews in the House and in Westminster than Brian Rix was ever able to put on. Some time, the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister without Portfolio will produce a review of reviews. [Laughter.]
There is a serious point here. The Labour party has nurtured this measure for about 18 years. The Bill is nasty and selfish. If the Labour party has been thinking about it for 18 years, it frightens me profoundly that it has managed to produce such a dog's breakfast. If this is what they have produced after 18 years, what will they produce as a result of forthcoming reviews that are to take only six months, such as the strategic defence review?
The Bill is riddled with contradictions. We should oppose it on a point of principle. Labour Members should welcome the fact that we are asking for a delay for some clear thinking, because the Labour party, in spite of 17 years in opposition, has arrived in government not yet knowing how to go about the practical business of governing.
The Bill is shot through with hypocrisy. The Government will do away with assisted places, not really to save money, but in response to the worst kind of old Labour socialism. On Second Reading, the class element came out strongly. New Labour is supposed to be classless, but there were a lot of rumblings on the Labour Back Benches about class.
As my hon. Friends have pointed out, the irony is that the assisted places scheme has helped ordinary boys and girls, giving them a helping hand up—something that many of us have had as a consequence of our education. The inconsistency is that the Government have gone out of their way to say that places involving music and ballet will not be affected. Why not? Why should music and ballet not be affected? In theory, we are talking of gifted young people; that applies to many of those who are on the assisted places scheme. We are confronted with a major inconsistency.

Mr. Luff: I hope that my hon. Friend is not urging that music and ballet should be included in the abolition of the assisted places scheme.

Mr. Simpson: Certainly not, but there is an inconsistency. Why are music and ballet not to be included? I would welcome the Minister's explanation.
Before the general election, the Labour party said that the most important issue was education, education, education. We relish the debate because we on the

Opposition Benches will say during consideration of this Bill and others that there are inconsistencies in the Labour Government's education, education, education.
A golden thread runs through the debate. Indeed, it lies at the heart of the Labour Government's overall policy. It does not, however, remain intact. I remember that, during the lead-up to the general election, the Leader of the Opposition had a question-and-answer session with several hundred sixth formers. The right hon. Gentleman spelt out Labour policy, and a sixth former said, "Excuse me, Mr. Blair, but I do not follow the logic. You have criticised the Conservative Government's education, health and social policies and said that they are underfunded, but you have said that you will not increase public expenditure. One part does not equal the other."
The Bill, like much else, is a desperate attempt to try to squeeze out bits and pieces of money to produce an overall education policy that will not be properly funded. It will not be properly funded at this stage and I suggest that when the Labour party's new economic policy is fully implemented we shall see what we have had before under previous Labour Governments; it will not be education, education, education, but cuts, cuts, cuts. I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: As an amendment in my name will come before the Committee later this evening, I shall confine my comments on this group of amendments to the haste with which the Government are trying to introduce their proposals. I welcome, however, the comments that have been made so far that go to the harm that the Bill, if implemented, will do to children of talent who do not otherwise have opportunities of such value as the assisted places scheme open to them. When the amendment that I have tabled is before the Committee, I shall explain why it is wrong to think that bright children are being cherry-picked and taken out of the state system and put into a sort of gilded cage. The Government have the wrong idea of what the APS is all about.
We have heard about social divisions. We all regret, of course, that there should be any social divisions in our society, but given the haste with which the Government propose to implement the Bill, there will be increased social divisions, not a reduction of them.
Given the haste of which I have spoken, I am concerned about the Government's honour. It is clearly stated in schedule 35 to the Education Act 1996 that there will be a three-year rule for participating schools. I am pleased, of course, that the Government are proposing to continue with the private finance initiative. They see, as we always have done, a vital need to include the private sector in funding the needs of our society. Indeed, in this instance, the private sector is helping to do exactly that. Unfortunately that is hastily being stopped, on terms that are, in effect, a breach of contract with the participating schools.
It will be no use for the Minister to say that he is allowed to proceed because he has a mandate from the people. If that argument is advanced, any contract that a Government enter into with the private sector can be broken by a new Government on the ground that they have a mandate from the people. The effect on the attractiveness of private sector funding and initiatives will be extremely damaging and will go far beyond education, to every area where we might hope to see the private sector involved.
I move on to think of my background in the business sector. Ask anyone in business about a change in direction, and he or she will always say that it takes a great deal longer than one would expect. The Government are pretty scanty in the reasoning behind their calculations. Indeed, it is obvious that they have undertaken only a paper exercise. In reality, there will be many hidden costs in closing down the APS. Given the Government's haste, there will be many unexpected costs. Alternatively, the Government will find that the provision of education across the board will suffer.
When, 18 years ago, the Labour party pledged to do away with the APS, the seeds of the scheme had not even been scattered. Since then, the seeds have found healthy ground and have grown from saplings into strong oaks. There are many areas where the APS is strong, doing extremely well and delivering excellent results. A sapling can be cut down in next to no time, but if a great oak is to be felled, the ground has to be prepared extremely carefully. There is obviously a need carefully to consider what might be hit or hurt in the process of the oak hitting the ground.
There are two figures of significant illustration. We know that 80,000 children have benefited from the APS. Currently, 34,000 are taking part in it. The scheme is only now reaching maturity. Its scale now was never dreamed of when the then Labour Opposition made their promise 18 years ago. The timetable of closure, however, is as if the scheme remains on the starting scale of 1981.
I am concerned about the haste with which it is proposed to close down the scheme, especially in the context of Surrey's local education authority. I know that the chairman of the education committee is concerned that when more and more children who would have gone into the APS are required to be taken into secondary schools, the funding adjustment paid by central Government to Surrey county council will be a year in arrears.
That means that, year by year, as more and more children come off the scheme, more and more will be going into secondary schools. At the same time, year after year, money will not come through until the year after. That means in effect that, in the case of Surrey, where we have a concentration of assisted places, there may be as much as a 3 per cent. shortfall in funding for our secondary schools—a real cut of 3 per cent. for Surrey's secondary schools, not in one year, but every year for five years. That is the nature of the problem, as a result of the haste with which the measure is being introduced.
The problem is that Ministers have devised the scheme to destroy assisted places with no costings, mechanisms or answers to the questions that the Opposition have raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) mentioned a series of Whitehall reviews. In this case we face the prospect of a Whitehall farce.

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): I welcome you, Mr. Lord, to the Committee. The debate has at times ranged wider than the amendments relating to clause 1, but I shall restrict my comments to the amendments under consideration.
The amendments seek to delay the implementation of the phasing out of the assisted places scheme for a further three years. The Opposition said that we were moving

with haste. We believe that we are moving in a way that will deliver on a clear pledge that we made to the British people during the general election. We make no apology for that. We have had 18 years of a Government who failed to deliver on their pledges. This Government will honour the pledges that we give to the British people. The Bill provides the Committee with the opportunity to do that tonight.

Mrs. Gillan: If the Minister is so determined that the Government will honour each and every one of their pledges, will he explain why they have already broken their pledge to women by failing to create a separate Minister for Women, and giving those responsibilities instead to the Secretary of State for Social Security? That pledge has already been broken.

Mr. Byers: It would be helpful if the Committee turned its attention to the assisted places scheme. I understand why the shadow Minister does not wish to address the issues before the Committee. She has no strong arguments to defend the fact that fewer than 40,000 pupils benefit from the finance under the APS, at the same time as one in four five, six and seven-year-olds are in classes of more than 30. The Government consider that unacceptable, which is why we are introducing the Bill.

Mr. Luff: Precisely when will the Government achieve their pledged objective of class sizes of less than 30?

Mr. Byers: We made that abundantly clear during the general election campaign. I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman did not look at our clear manifesto commitments. For the benefit of Opposition Front-Bench Members, I reiterate that, at the end of the lifetime of this Parliament, every five, six and seven-year-old in Britain will be in a class of 30 or less. That compares with the record of the Conservative Government, who allowed class sizes to increase year on year on year. We do not intend to go down that road.

Mr. Luff: rose—

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Mr. Byers: I shall take no more interventions at this stage. I shall reply to the issues raised during the debate, and I shall take interventions at the appropriate time.
We are honouring the commitments made to the 1997 intake of young people who were offered an assisted place. By honouring that commitment, we are demonstrating that we are not motivated by dogma. We put the interests of the majority of young people first. That is why we shall allow those young people to continue to receive an assisted place.

Mrs. Gillan: Is it not true that the Government are honouring so-called places because they are determined to get more money into the scheme so that they can then take more money out of the scheme? When they looked closely at the details, the Government realised that they did not have enough money to rob from the APS to reduce class sizes. In fact, the sum is so negligible that it will not have any effect on class sizes, according to some independent commentators.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady may be right—we may be in a win-win situation, delivering on the pledge to reduce


class sizes and also allowing those young people to receive an assisted place this September. That might well be the outcome, and parents throughout the country will rejoice at it.
Conservative Members spoke about a point of principle, and said that the Bill was a nasty, selfish piece of legislation. It says a lot for their principles, if the fact that we are to offer improved education opportunities to 440,000 youngsters at the expense of 40,000 young people is seen as selfish. Conservative Members seem to have their own definition of selfish. It confirms the view that my father long expressed, that the Conservative party was based on three fundamental principles: envy, self-interest and greed. The debate over the past two hours shows precisely that.

Mr. Hayes: Do the Government believe that it would be possible for local education authorities to absorb into the maintained sector all the pupils displaced by the abolition of the assisted places scheme, without any additional net cost to LEAs?

Mr. Byers: That is an important point, and I was about to deal with it. Because we have decided that there will be not an outright abolition of the assisted places scheme, but a phasing out effectively for a seven-year period, we believe that there will be no difficulty in ensuring that the pupils who may have gone into an assisted place can be catered for by the maintained sector.
The figures are interesting, and the Committee should be made aware of them. It is calculated that there would be a maximum of 10,000 young people entering the assisted places scheme in September 1998, if the scheme were to be continued. If we assumed that not one of those young people went into the independent sector but that they were all to be educated in the maintained sector, they would add one eighth of 1 per cent. to the total national maintained school population of 8 million. They can be accommodated within the sector, particularly because, as some Opposition Members will be aware, the local education authority concerned will have its education standard spending assessment amended in the light of the increased number of pupils who will be attending those maintained schools.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am afraid that the Minister has ignored the fact that one eighth of 1 per cent. means nothing. What is significant is the number of pupils in relation to the year group that they are entering, and the impact on that year group. Furthermore, in some parts of the country, including the area that I represent, the concentration of children in assisted places is higher than the average by a factor of six or seven. The Government's calculation of the impact on such areas is widely astray.

Mr. Byers: I understand why, as a constituency Member of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman defends the interests of his area, Guildford. We intend to govern on behalf of the entire country. That means introducing a measure this evening that will ensure that we deliver on the pledge that we made to the British people. I understand why the Opposition, used as they are to a Government of drift and dither, do not like the idea of a Government who are prepared to deliver on behalf of the British people. The Government will do precisely that.
There is no need for any delay this evening. Tonight we begin the process of delivering on that pledge, and that is why I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.

Mrs. Gillan: That was an incredible performance.

Mr. Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. I think that I know the answer to this point of order before I raise it, but do you have any power to encourage a Minister to answer the points raised during a debate?

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): It is not the job of the Chair to decide how Ministers respond to debates.

Mrs. Gillan: I almost feel like saying, "Further to that point of order." That is one of the most appalling performances that I have heard at the Dispatch Box. The Minister has come to the Committee to talk about a Bill that is destroying a style of education available to 40,000 pupils in Britain, yet he does not have the courtesy to give straight answers to straight questions posed by my hon. Friends. People inside and outside the House will notice that the Minister has run away from those issues. He talks of dogma, but the Bill is based on nothing but socialist dogma.
One of the questions that the Minister has failed to answer concerns the fact that LEAs will be given extra money in the standard spending assessments to cover the additional pupils they will have to absorb. That will be in Hansard and a matter of record. How will the Government guarantee that that money will be spent on children and extra teachers in order to reduce class sizes? At the moment, there is no mechanism to transfer the money directly to the classroom.
Obviously, the Labour Government will become so arrogant, dictatorial and authoritative that they will change the basis on which all LEAs operate. I hope that all LEAs are listening to the debate. They should look out, because the Government will tell them exactly how to spend their money in future. That is the only way in which the Minister can keep the pledge that he has made at the Dispatch Box tonight.

Mr. Colvin: Conservative Members have become used to the fact that the fifth column in the Labour party has traditionally been the trade union movement. But looking at the new Labour intake, one recognises another fifth column, which is local government. Although the Chancellor has said that he will honour the spending commitments, there is no commitment to provide the extra £250 million net that the scheme will cost, and unless the Government can deliver to local government their manifesto commitments, Labour Back Benchers will begin to shout the odds and demand that that money be provided. I do not yet know where that money will come from.

Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. The Government have on their Back Benches many unknown quantities. I am sure that they have been busy finding out more about them. They never expected to be elected, and the Government never expected to have to deal with them. However, I am sure that the hon. Members who were surprised at their own election are still Members of


integrity, and they will start asking questions of the Government—questions which patently, from the Minister's performance tonight, he is unable to answer.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend raised an important point about how we can ensure that the extra money granted by the SSA system will be given to individual schools. This year, £500,000 of the increase that the previous Government gave Gloucestershire LEA has not gone to the schools. If a similar thing happens in this regard, we shall be in difficulty.

Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend makes his point and reinforces it. I remember, in the dim and distant days when I was a Minister, a delegation from a Labour council from the north of England, who asked for more money for several schools in her area. She was surprised to find that the Department had already allocated money to those schools which, mysteriously, had never reached them.
The Minister still has so many questions to answer that I do not know how he has the gall to sit down after such a short speech.

Mr. Luff: I did not receive an answer from the Minister. I sought to intervene, but he suggested that he would make a longer speech. I asked him about the phasing out of the assisted places scheme and the class sizes pledge. How much will the Minister have saved from the abolition of the assisted places scheme at the end of this Parliament to enable him to meet his class sizes pledge? Surely he will not have enough. I wanted to ask him that, but I was denied the opportunity.

Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend is right, and I shall give the Minister the opportunity to answer that directly. How much money will be available at the end of this year?

Mr. Byers: By the end of this century, £100 million will be available, and that will be enough to deliver on the class sizes pledge.

Mrs. Gillan: I repeat the question to the Minister. How much money will be available at the end of the first year? The Minister is repeating parrot fashion the lines written by his officials. He does not have an original thought in his head. I ask him to answer the question directly.

Mr. Byers: As we all know from our days in opposition, when the hon. Lady was a Minister, she certainly parroted the lines prepared for her by civil servants.
We have always made it clear that the pledge will be honoured at the end of the lifetime of this Parliament. By 2000, £100 million will be freed up from the assisted places scheme, and that will make an important contribution towards achieving our class sizes pledge.

Mrs. Gillan: That intervention really was not worth giving way to, was it, Mr. Lord?

Mr. Lidington: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Gillan: Yes, I think that my hon. Friend will have a worthwhile contribution to make.

Mr. Lidington: As the Minister has just reasserted that the Government hope for savings of £100 million by the

end of the century, yet the independent Institute of Public Finance says that the savings will be about £34 million net before taking account of the £100 million capital expenditure that would then be needed, does my hon. Friend agree that we might be able to have a more informed debate if the Minister were to place in the Library of the House a detailed analysis of the Government's calculations, so that we could see exactly why the Government argue that the Institute of Public Finance is wrong?

Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend has made the point, and I hope that the Minister has been listening to it. I shall give way to him if he would like to agree to put a detailed explanation in the Library. He does not want to intervene, so he obviously does not want to do that.
We have had some excellent speeches. My hon. Friends have spoken with great passion and feeling on the subject, compared with the derisory miniature speech delivered by the Minister just now. It is good to see so many Labour Members, because at one time so interested were the Government in education, education, education that about five Labour Members were listening to the debate. Yet the Government asked for this Committee stage to be taken on the Floor of the House. There was no interest in the debate, because they have closed their mind. The Government are just pushing the scheme aside, out of sight, out of mind. The guillotine is coming down.
What is the hurry? The amendments asked the Government to stop and think. Let us put in proportion what we are talking about. The Minister said time and again that by the end of the century the Government will have saved £100 million. That is less than 0.001 per cent. of the education budget. It is a derisory amount. For the sake of raising such a derisory amount, the Minister will end a system that is providing a first-class education to 40,000 of our children. Will that £100 million contribute to reducing class sizes to the level that the Minister wants? A little, but nowhere near enough to reduce class sizes to 30 by the end of the Government's life. He has failed to answer any of the questions that have been posed by me and my hon. Friends.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister's disgraceful response to my intervention shows that the Government will look after people on low incomes if they are in a Labour area, but that the Government have no care for the future benefit of people with low incomes in Conservative areas?

Mrs. Gillan: That is obvious from everything that was said on Second Reading, and if my hon. Friend reads Hansard for that debate, he will see the theme of envy running through all the contributions from Labour Members.
The questions that the Minister has not answered are very serious. For example, how should local education authorities prepare for the increased number of children they will have to accept? Not all parents who would have an assisted place for their child will be able to make the sacrifice to spend the money and send their child to an independent school.
How should schools gear themselves up and make provision for the change? In a written answer to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), it is obvious that the Minister does not know. He was asked:


what estimate he has made of the number of extra primary teachers to be provided from the abolition of the assisted places scheme in each financial year from 1997–98 to 2001–02.
He replied:
It will be for individual LEAs to judge what adjustments will be needed to primary teacher numbers to ensure smaller classes.
He obviously has not consulted LEAs about the numbers needed to provide smaller classes. He has therefore certainly not consulted the LEAs about how they will prepare for the increased numbers of children who will no longer attend independent schools.
The Minister is being stupid. He should accept the amendments and proceed more slowly. I understand that the Government want to get rid of the assisted places scheme. I understand their hatred for it and the way in which they despise independent education, notwithstanding the fact that more than 40 Labour Members were educated in independent schools.
Had the Minister not been so pig-headed and slowed down, time would have solved his problems. The Girls Public Day Schools Trust would have had time to get its fund up and running, to try to replace the moneys from the assisted places scheme. Other schools throughout the country might have had time to make provision to replace what the Government will rob from the community. By proceeding so rapidly, the Minister will cause children to fall back on the local education authorities' provision, and, by his own admission, those authorities have not been consulted and are not prepared for what might happen.
By failing to accept the amendments, the Minister will damage individuals. He obviously does not care about the effect that the Bill will have on families, because he is not listening. What will happen to the families who expected, the year after next, that their child would have a good chance of getting an assisted place? He has dashed their hopes by not accepting our sensible proposals. We do not suggest stopping abolition, because we understand that that is what the Minister wants to do, but we ask him to take more time to do it for the sake of the children.
The Government obviously have no respect for children, and certainly they have no respect for the education of the 40,000 children we are discussing. We shall therefore press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 138, Noes 353.

Division No. 15]
[6.54 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Cash, William


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Chope, Christopher


Arbuthnot, James
Clappison, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth


Baldry, Tony
(Rushcliffe)


Bercow, John
Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul
Collins, Tim


Blunt, Crispin
Colvin, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Cran, James


Brady, Graham
Curry, Rt Hon David


Brazier, Julian
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Quentin


Browning, Mrs Angela
(Grantham & Stamford)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Day, Stephen


Burns, Simon
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Butterfill, John
Duncan Smith, Iain





Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Evans, Nigel
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Faber, David
May, Mrs Theresa


Fabricant, Michael
Merchant, Piers


Fallon, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Flight, Howard
Nicholls, Patrick


Forth, Eric
Norman, Archie


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Page, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Paice, James


Gale, Roger
Paterson, Owen


Garnier, Edward
Pickles, Eric


Gibb, Nick
Prior, David


Gill, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Robathan, Andrew


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gray, James
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Green, Damian
Ruffley, David


Greenway, John
St Aubyn, Nick


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hague, Rt Hon William
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hammond, Philip
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hawkins, Nick
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hayes, John
Spring, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Steen, Anthony


Horam, John
Streeter, Gary


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Syms, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Key, Robert
Tredinnick, David


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Trend, Michael


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tyrie, Andrew


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Viggers, Peter


Lansley, Andrew
Walter, Robert


Leigh, Edward
Waterson, Nigel


Letwin, Oliver
Wells, Bowen


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Lidington, David
Whittingdale, John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Willetts, David


Loughton, Tim
Wilshire, David


Luff, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Woodward, Shaun


MacKay, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


McLoughlin, Patrick



Madel, Sir David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Malins, Humfrey
Mr. Richard Ottaway and


Maples, John
Mr. Peter Ainsworth.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benton, Joe


Ainger, Nick
Bermingham, Gerald


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Berry, Roger


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blackman, Mrs Liz


Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)
Blears, Ms Hazel


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Blizzard, Robert


Ashton, Joe
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Borrow, David


Austin, John
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Banks, Tony
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Barnes, Harry
Bradshaw, Ben


Battle, John
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, Rt Hon Nick


Beard, Nigel
(Newcastle E & Wallsend)


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Buck, Ms Karen


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Burden, Richard


Bennett, Andrew F
Burgon, Colin






Butler, Christine
Foster, Fit Hon Derek


Byers, Stephen
Foster, Don (Bath)


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Foster, Michael John (Worcester)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell-Savours, Dale
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Cann, Jamie
Gerrard, Neil


Caplin, Ivor
Gibson, Dr Ian


Casale, Roger
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caton, Martin
Godman, Dr Norman A


Cawsey, Ian
Godsiff, Roger


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Goggins, Paul


Chaytor, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chidgey, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chisholm, Malcolm
Graham, Thomas


Clapham, Michael
Grant, Bernie


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hain, Peter


Clelland, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Coaker, Vernon
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hancock, Mike


Cohen, Harry
Hanson, David


Coleman, Iain
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


(Hammersmith & Fulham)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Colman, Anthony (Putney)
Healey, John


Connarty, Michael
Heath, David (Somerton)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cooper, Ms Yvette
Hepburn, Stephen


Corbett, Robin
Heppell, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hesford, Stephen


Corston, Ms Jean
Hill, Keith


Cousins, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Cranston, Ross
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Crausby, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hope, Philip


Cummings, John
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Curtis—Thomas, Ms Clare
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dalyell, Tam
Howells, Dr Kim


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hoyle, Lindsay


Darvill, Keith
Hughes, Ms Beverley


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
(Stretford & Urmston)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davidson, Ian
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hutton, John


Dawson, Hilton
Iddon, Brian


Dean, Ms Janet
Illsley, Eric


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)


Dobbin, Jim
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jamieson, David


Doran, Frank
Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)


Dowd, Jim
Johnson, Alan (Hull W)


Drew, David
Johnson, Ms Melanie


Drown, Ms Julia
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)


Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Ms Jenny


Efford, Clive
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Ellman, Ms Louise
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Ennis, Jeff
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Fearn, Ronnie
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Fisher, Mark
Keen, Alan (Feltham)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)


Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna
Kemp, Fraser


Flint, Ms Caroline
Kennedy, Charles


Flynn, Paul
(Ross Skye & Inverness W)





Khabra, Piara S
Pollard, Kerry


Kidney, David
Pond, Chris


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pound, Stephen


Kingham, Tessa
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Primarolo, Dawn


Laxton, Bob
Prosser, Gwyn


Lepper, David
Purchase, Ken


Leslie, Christopher
Quin, Ms Joyce


Levitt, Tom
Quinn, Lawrie


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Radice, Giles


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rammell, Bill


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rapson, Syd


Linton, Martin
Raynsford, Nick


Livingstone, Ken
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Livsey, Richard
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lock, David
Robertson, Rt Hon George


Love, Andy
(Hamilton S)


McAvoy, Thomas
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McCabe, Stephen
Rooker, Jeff


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rooney, Terry


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McDonagh, Ms Siobhain
Rowlands, Ted


Macdonald, Calum
Roy, Frank


McDonnell, John
Ruane, Chris


McFall, John
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McIsaac, Ms Shona
Ryan, Ms Joan


McKenna, Ms Rosemary
Salmond, Alex


Mackinlay, Andrew
Savidge, Malcolm


McLeish, Henry
Sawford, Phil


MacShane, Denis
Sedgemore, Brian


Mactaggart, Fiona
Shaw, Jonathan


McWalter, Tony
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mallaber, Ms Judy
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marek, Dr John
Singh, Marsha


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Skinner, Dennis


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Maxton, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Meale, Alan
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Merron, Ms Gillian
Smith, Ms Jaoqui (Redditch)


Milburn, Alan
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moffatt, Laura
Soley, Clive


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Southworth, Ms Helen


Moran, Ms Margaret
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stevenson, George


Morley, Elliot
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mountford, Ms Kali
Stringer, Graham


Mudie, George
Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)


Mullin, Chris
Stunell, Andrew


Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
(Dewsbury)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Norris, Dan
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Timms, Stephen


Olner, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


O'Neill, Martin
Todd, Mark


Opik, Lembit
Truswell, Paul


Osborne, Mrs Sandra
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pendry, Tom
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Perham, Ms Linda
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pickthall, Colin
Vaz, Keith


Pike, Peter L
Vis, Dr Rudi


Plaskitt, James
Walley, Ms Joan






Ward, Ms Claire
Winnick, David


Watts, David
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


White, Brian
Wise, Audrey


Whitehead, Alan
Wood, Mike


Wicks, Malcolm
Woolas, Phil


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Worthington, Tony


(Swansea W)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)



Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)


Williams, Dr Alan W
Wyatt, Derek


(E Carmarthen)



Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Tellers for the Noes:


Willis, Phil
Mr. Greg Pope and Jane Kennedy.


Wills, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mrs. Gillan: The heart of the Bill is contained in clause 1: it is the vehicle which the Government are using to snatch the assisted places scheme from the grasp of 34,000 children. We had a good debate on the amendments to clause 1, but they did not cover the scheme as a whole or the principles behind the abolition of the scheme.
The scheme played an integral part in the previous Government's policy of promoting choice, diversity and excellence in education. It gave choice to parents, especially parents on low incomes. As we heard on Second Reading, more than 40 per cent. of children who attended independent schools on assisted places came from families with an income of less than £10,000. More than 80 per cent. of the pupils currently in the scheme come from families whose income is below the national average.
It is amazing that, for the purposes of other debates on other subjects, the Government deem a family that has a total income of below £10,000 to be in poverty, but for the purposes of abolishing the assisted places scheme, it was suggested on Second Reading that some of those families were Lloyd's names or other undeserving individuals. I find that abhorrent, because it has been obvious from the examination of the scheme over many years that the families who benefit have incomes in the lowest quartile.

Mr. Clappison: I think that it was the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), who said on Second Reading that about 1,000 families with an income of more than £24,000 received assistance. Is my hon. Friend aware that a family in such circumstances has to make a contribution of more than £3,000? Does she agree that that is a substantial sacrifice for a family on such an income, and it shows how highly those families value the assisted places scheme?

Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend is right. The Government have no concept of the sacrifice that families make to obtain what they consider to be the right education for their children.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady asserted that it was outrageous to say that children of Lloyd's names received an assisted place. Will she confirm that that statement was made by the former Conservative Member for Buckingham, George Walden?

Mrs. Gillan: Unlike Labour Members, I will not confirm something that I do not know. The Minister

quotes the former Member for Buckingham, but it was obvious to everyone that I did not hold the same views as him on this subject. That comment was quoted and endorsed by Labour Members, so the politics of envy is alive and kicking.
The guide issued by the Department for Education and Employment says that, at the top of the scale, a family whose combined income in a tax year is £26,000 would have to make a contribution out of taxed income of £4,059. A family with two children in the scheme would have to pay £3,042 for each child, so they would be paying more than £6,000 out of taxed income towards their children's education.
7.15 pm
Families are prepared to pay that contribution because they believe in the scheme and think that it is worth while. They are willing to make the sacrifice. I know parents who are on incomes much higher than that but are not willing to make the sacrifice to send their children to independent schools. Perhaps they believe that that form of education is not right for their child.
The parents who have applied for assisted places and whose children have been clever enough to obtain places in independent schools believe that that form of education is right for their children. The Government are now telling them that they will no longer have the opportunity to obtain the education that they believe and know is best for their child.
There is no doubt that the Government are treating independent schools with great disdain. They have broken the contract with independent schools. As one of my hon. Friends rightly said in the debate on the amendments, there was a three-year contract with these schools and the Government have broken it. The breaking of that contract will go down in history as one of the biggest acts of political envy that the Government could perpetrate.
The raison d'etre for abolishing the scheme comes down to two Labour soundbites: "We will reduce class sizes" and—

Mr. Phil Woolas: Govern for the many, not the few.

Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Member has repeated it very well—"We will govern for the many, not the few."
The effect of a reduction in class sizes has been examined over and again. The Government's sums do not add up. They have consistently tried to pull the wool over our eyes about the amounts that are needed to meet their targets. If they do not know the amount of money that is required to reduce class sizes to below 30 by the end of the lifetime of this Parliament, how can they possibly justify destroying the scheme and saving a small amount of money that will go only part way towards reaching that target?
Where will the extra money come from to reduce class sizes? The Minister is not listening, because he does not care and he does not know the answer. If he knew the answer, he would have given it in the previous debate. Once again, I am giving the Minister the opportunity to answer the questions that he failed to answer in the previous debate. How much money must he find to reduce class sizes to 30 by the end of this Parliament?
I feel strongly about this subject, which is more than can be said for the Minister. How will LEAs prepare for the increased number of children who may be thrown into their schools because of the abolition of the scheme? Why have the Government not delayed the scheme to enable independent schools to replace the money that they currently receive from assisted places? The Minister does not have the resources to fund his pledges. He will take a meagre amount from the abolition of the scheme, and that is the pathetic excuse for the legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) asked the Minister in a written question what estimate he had made of the amount of money that would be available for education from the abolition of the assisted places scheme, net of the cost of educating within the state sector those pupils who would otherwise have been on the assisted places scheme. The Minister replied:
There will be no significant additional burden on Local Education Authorities from educating children who would otherwise have entered the assisted places scheme each year.
Does that mean that those children will be educated free? The Minister's answer suggests that he has no concept of the cost of each place at a maintained school. He has said that there will be "no significant additional burden" on LEAs. Will he define a "significant additional burden"? The Minister's answer to my hon. Friend was a fudge, and I expect him to define that answer when he replies to the debate. It is another question in addition to all those that he has disrespectfully failed to answer in Committee.
Will the Minister give an undertaking, based on his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, that no LEA will face additional costs as a result of taking children who would otherwise have been educated under the assisted places scheme? He could probably give an undertaking on that—if he is prepared to stand by his answer to that written question, which he answered today.
I should like to deal with the soundbite on which this vicious legislation is based.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Vicious?

Mrs. Gillan: Yes, I said vicious, and I hope that the Minister heard me correctly. I am glad that I have the House's attention.
The Government have said that they will govern for the many, not the few. Have Labour Members analysed that pathetic little soundbite? If they believe it, we face one of the most dangerous Governments that the country has had. Any Government who take their responsibilities seriously would appreciate that they have to govern for the few. It is essential to protect the interests of minorities, and sometimes to enhance their lives. To govern for the many and not the few would mean that many programmes would be abolished. That is what is to happen to the assisted places scheme.
If the Government intend to govern for the many and not for the few, I presume that they will abolish section 11 funding. The Government of which I was a member provided that funding, and I presume that the present

Government will continue to do that until they fall back on their soundbites. That funding is not for the many: it is for the few people for whom English is not the first language. If the Government intend to keep their pledges, they will do away with section 11 funding. Governing for the many and not for the few means that money will not be put into the travellers education unit. That money is for the few children of travellers who might need a special type of education which costs more than the average place in the primary or secondary sectors.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I have allowed some latitude, but I should be grateful if the hon. Lady returned to the debate on the clause.

Mrs. Gillan: I mean no discourtesy to the Chair. The clause is the heart of the Bill. I have said that the Government's pledge is that they will govern for the many, not the few, and I shall relate that directly to assisted places.
If the Government are to stick to that pledge, why should they continue to support the music and ballet scheme? I am thrilled that that scheme is to continue. It has provided specialised education for 644 of our most talented youngsters who have expertise in ballet or music. The scheme costs nearly £8 million. That is governing for the few, not the many, so why could not the assisted places scheme be retained? It is for the few, as are section 11 funding, special education needs funding and funding for the travellers units. Those are the few in our society.
Labour Members should bear in mind the fact that government has to be for the few as well as for the many. The Government's soundbite is bankrupt.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gillan: No. I am in full flood. My adage is, when in full flood do not give way to a Flynn.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady may be in full flow, but I should be grateful if she would return to the clause.

Mrs. Gillan: For the sake of a soundbite, clause 1 destroys the assisted places scheme. The Government operate double standards on other schemes and their expenditure on some children is far in excess of the average expenditure on each child in the scheme. The clause takes abrupt action to finish the scheme in its entirety. It is motivated by hatred and based on double standards, and it uses arithmetic that has never added up. The Minister has so far failed to answer questions. I hope that he will later answer all the questions that my hon. Friends and I have put to him. I hope that he has made a note of each question and that he will provide us with full answers. If he cannot do that, he should withdraw his Bill because it will destroy a valuable scheme for many children.

Mr. Hayes: I rise to introduce some further issues. I hope that the House will forgive me for being fairly comprehensive in taking an elaborate tour of the local education authorities of Great Britain.
I shall start with the Nottinghamshire LEA, of which I have been a member for a dozen or so years. It is absolutely clear—the Bill is relevant to this—that class size is of diminishing importance. I said in the previous debate that although the Government—and, by implication, the Bill—focus on class size, it is of diminishing importance due to the changing nature of teaching and learning. Some hon. Members looked a little mystified at that. I know that not all hon. Members, especially Labour Members, are fully briefed on and acquainted with such matters. [Interruption.] I do not mean that in a patronising way—really. I was talking about the nature of technology, technology support in schools and the way in which teachers use technology to facilitate better teaching and learning.
Labour Members and the architects of the proposals before us have not grasped such a change. Perhaps they feel that the wider public have not grasped it, so it is not politically sensible to base policy around it. Perhaps people have not come to terms with the change because they are not familiar with what is happening at the leading edge of education. Surely Ministers have a responsibility to reflect such a fundamental change in the nature of the Bill.
The proposals are based on the false premise that to eliminate disadvantage one must restrict opportunity. It might be laudable to want to eliminate disadvantage, and considering the way in which socialists typically run LEAs, I am sure that they would claim that as their motivation. I do not, however, believe that the method of eliminating disadvantage by pulling people down is either laudable or acceptable. It is all born of the notion that if everyone cannot have it, no one should have it. That is the core principle of the Bill.
Just under 40,000 people are enjoying the advantages of the assisted places scheme. One might argue that that is a very small number and that the scheme therefore does not touch the lives of many families. To use the word of the Minister for School Standards, I have no envy—or bitterness or jealousy—about the opportunity, advantage and choice being given to those 37,000 or 40,000 people. Since I have none of those feelings, I have no desire to frustrate or restrict their opportunity and choice. I do not believe that that is true of many—I do not say all—Labour Members. I do not take a naive view that they are all wicked; some are just misguided. Such feelings are fundamental to some of the thinking of a number of the architects of the proposals.
When I said earlier that the legislation was negative and pernicious, I was saying so more in sorrow than in anger. I ask the Government to look again at how to eliminate disadvantage without restricting opportunity. Was not it Abraham Lincoln who said, "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer"? There is a parallel there somewhere—hon. Members may have to search for it, but it is there somewhere.
I turn to funding. Members of the fifth column, as having a background in local government was described earlier—well, I come from local government, too—will appreciate that there is no mechanism or structure for

delivering the money from assisted places in a direct exchange of funds. The implication of what is before the House is that there could be a direct transfer of the money saved by abolishing assisted places to reduce class sizes, yet the mechanism for doing so does not exist.
We need to answer the question whether there is a precedent for the targeted ring fencing of money outside the LEA structure. Some hon. Members—probably more on the Opposition Benches—might not have a problem with that, but I should have thought that it would cause considerable problems for the Labour party and create considerable tension between the parliamentary Labour party and the many Labour-controlled LEAs, which will jealously guard the right to decide precisely how to spend the money allocated to them for education. We have not had a satisfactory answer to that question.
In order to facilitate a direct transfer of the money from the assisted places scheme to the reduction of class sizes in the very speedy way suggested, one would have to a devise new mechanism. There is certainly no evidence of that in any clause. Nor has it been evident in any explanation, answer, or lack of answer given in Committee or on Second Reading.
I should like to draw attention to the scale involved. Cost per pupil is, of course, variable. The cost per pupil in many LEAs—I could obviously name a number of examples in London—is much higher than the average, as has been said. The average cost per pupil of about £2,700 is very different from the extremes, which are much lower and much higher. There is a patchy picture of not only the cost of readmitting pupils to their LEA but the number of pupils affected.
Since the take-up of the assisted places scheme varies and, therefore, the number of children who will be reabsorbed into any one LEA is different, and given the varying cost of educating pupils, we need clear explanations of the implications that such variations will have in different parts of the country. That has not been adequately dealt with or explained to the satisfaction of—I would have thought—any hon. Member. We have not had a full, detailed and unequivocal statement on that.
I also want to draw attention, at the risk of being verbose, to the record on class sizes. It is not the parody or caricature that has been drawn for us today. Class sizes have been more a result of changes in the birth rate and local demography than they have of any Government's policy. That is best illustrated by the record of class sizes over the past 30 years. Many younger Members will recall their own education in quite large classes. Around about 1975, class sizes reached a peak under the previous Labour Government, not as a result—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The clause stand part debate goes wider than debate on amendments, but class sizes have nothing to do with assisted places. The hon. Member must talk about assisted places.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful for that advice. I am sure that you will appreciate, Mr. Martin, that as a new Member I have a lot to learn. I am always willing to take advice and guidance from any quarter.
The abolition of the assisted places scheme has been put forward as a means of delivering smaller classes. Indeed, the Minister made that point during today's


debate. He said that the legitimate mandate he had from the British people—I have no argument with him about that because he and his colleagues put their case fairly and squarely—was about the relationship between the abolition of the assisted places scheme and the facilitation of the policy for smaller class sizes.

Mrs. Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. On the front page of the Bill, under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill" it says:
The Bill's provisions will lead to savings which will be spent on reducing infant class sizes in the maintained sector.
Can you confirm that, as that is on the front of the Bill, it is pertinent to the entire Bill, including clause 1? I should be grateful for your guidance because I am sure that that is why many hon. Members, including myself, have been referring to that. I should be awfully grateful for your advice.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Lady will get my advice. People can mention various matters during a debate, but they must keep relating them to the clause. The clause is about the abolition of assisted places. If someone tells me that there is a connection with class sizes, I can accept it, but if someone debates class sizes for ever and a day, I cannot accept it. I must keep pulling the debate back to the clause. Perhaps that will help the hon. Lady and others.

Mrs. Gillan: Thank you very much for that clarification, Mr. Martin. Hon. Members have felt justified in referring to class sizes because of what it says on the front of the Bill. That has given me a clear indication of what the Chair wants. Thank you very much.

The First Deputy Chairman: Hon. Members need not worry about my intervening. I am here to try to keep things right. If there is any difficulty, I will soon let hon. Members know. There is no problem with that.

Mr. Hayes: That was extraordinarily erudite, Mr. Martin.
I want to return to the issue raised by the Minister which is the relationship between assisted places and class sizes and I want to do that if only to get the Minister off the hook. If the Bill were just about abolishing assisted places and was unrelated to the size of classes, it would be entirely negative. That is why class size has been put forward as a crucial element in the debate and has been mentioned on the front of the Bill. If it were simply the business of getting rid of assisted places for a negative reason—

Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key points being made by Conservative Members is that to say that this provision is for the purpose of reducing class sizes is just window dressing? That is not really the purpose; it is just a spiteful little measure.

Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend is harsher than I am. I was being generous and trying to offer an olive branch to the Minister. I was trying to help him to justify why he is

doing this, because I know that he is having some difficulties. I am suggesting that there may be a positive side as well as the pernicious, negative and unpleasant side to the abolition of assisted places. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) may be right and the issue of class size may be irrelevant.
The fact that all this cannot be delivered easily, that there are no figures available, that the sums do not add up and that there are no mechanisms for ringfencing and targeting this money for LEAs, may mean that this is all a charade. This may be just the negative business of taking away from working-class children the opportunity of attending private schools. However, I prefer to be generous and to assume that this is a two-sided coin.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Will my hon. Friend consider another aspect of this nasty little measure? Many of the children on assisted places come from emotionally deprived homes and are sent to residential schools in the private sector because there are no residential schools in the public sector for children who are emotionally deprived or from emotionally disturbed families. In fact, this measure is hitting not only children from poor homes but children who are emotionally deprived as well.

Mr. Hayes: One of the most fundamental problems facing education—I think that this will be acknowledged by both sides of the House—and which has been taken on board by a number of experts is the increasing number of children with special needs or statemented children with emotional or behavioural difficulties. As my hon. Friend said, there is a real mismatch between the increase in the number of such children and adequate provision to deal with them. What has happened in many LEAs—

Mr. Phil Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hayes: In a moment. I am getting rather good at this.
What is happening in many LEAs is that, as a result of the integration of special needs children into the mainstream, the specialist provision that previously existed for emotionally and behaviourally challenged children has been reduced.

Mr. Willis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this point has nothing to do with the assisted places scheme? The vast majority of LEAs in this country are desperately short of resources and were squeezed to death by the previous Government. They have real difficulties trying to educate children with severe learning difficulties, particularly psychological or emotional difficulties. They make provision to teach such children through their existing budgets, not through the assisted places scheme. The hon. Gentleman made his point extremely well but extremely badly.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman's intervention belies the fact that the motivation for the integration of special needs children into the mainstream came not from financial necessity but from the ideological perspective born of Warnock and the Education Act 1980, which was


introduced by the Conservative Government. I make no value judgment about that, but initially LEAs, regardless of the party in control, were encouraged to integrate children into the mainstream—

Mr. Giles Radice: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Is this still in order, because it does not have much to do with assisted places?

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) must relate his remarks to clause 1.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Martin. I flirted briefly with that subject because I was distracted by an irrelevant point from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis).

Mr. Steen: My point, from which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough tried to distract my hon. Friend, had nothing to do with children with special needs. The assisted places scheme helped children from emotionally deprived homes or from families with emotional problems to attend residential schools because there are very few such schools in the public sector. I should like my hon. Friend's views on that.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) should know better. Recent interventions have been very long.

Mr. Hayes: Hon. Members with considerably more experience than I are seducing me into all sorts of areas and I feel a little bewildered and confused.
It is true that the assisted places scheme offered an opportunity to go to a type of school that does not exist in the mainstream. In that sense, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes is absolutely right. The extension of diversity of provision offered by the scheme to a wider range of children was a fundamental aspect of it.
The counter-argument might be—again, I am attempting to be helpful to the Minister—that the scheme applied to only a small number of children. As I said earlier, however, that aspect of the scheme does not justify its abolition.
The appeal of the assisted places scheme was that, for 37,000 children, it offered diversity and choice. The Bill's passage will eliminate that choice, and that is undesirable. Although only a small number benefited, I celebrate the fact that that small number had such extended opportunities.
In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Yes, although I promised that I would make a tour of local education authorities, I was only teasing Labour Members.

Mr. Heald: In dealing with clause 1, my hon. Friend has been discussing whether the assisted places scheme should be abolished. A middle course proposed by the Liberal Democrats, however, is that it should be "sort of" abolished, although local authorities would be able to "sort of make something similar in a way" of an agreement with a local authority. What does my hon. Friend think of that patchwork quilt approach?

Mr. Hayes: Perhaps I can summarise the Liberal Democrats' approach to the issue. Whereas Labour

Members, by using the issue of class sizes, are wolves in sheep's clothing, the Liberal Democrats are sheep in sheep's clothing.

Mr. David Heath: In cheap clothing?

Mr. Hayes: No, sheep's; they are sheep in sheep's clothing. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has benefited from a good education—perhaps from an assisted place, although he looks a little too old.

Mr. Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Lord.

Mr. Giles Radice: He is Mr. Martin.

Mr. Willis: Mr. Martin, are the hon. Gentleman's comments at all pertinent to clause 1?

The First Deputy Chairman: The Committee is getting out of hand, so I will have to be a little more strict. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) must speak to the clause, and other hon. Members must not make sedentary interventions.

Mr. Hayes: Thank you, Mr. Martin. Liberal Democrat Members were diverting me from the straight and narrow, as they have done so often in so many constituencies across the country.
The assisted places scheme offered opportunity, hope and a new chance—not to the wealthy, to the privilege or to those whom one might expect the Labour party to have in its sights, but to ordinary people and poor children who would never have dreamed of an opportunity to attend the type of school that has been open to them because of the scheme. To abolish the assisted places scheme is not only negative and pernicious, it is a disgrace for which, in the fulness of time, the Labour party will have many regrets and full remorse.

Mr. Francis Maude: I should, first, declare a personal interest—not a financial interest—in that I am chairman of the governors of Abingdon school, which is the school that I attended. I undertake that office in a completely unpaid capacity.
Abingdon school provides an instructive example for this debate. When I attended Abingdon, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it was a direct grant school. It is an ancient foundation, whose historic mission was to provide an excellent education for bright boys in the town of Abingdon and its surrounding areas, and it continued with that historic mission until that paring Social Democrat, Baroness Williams, came along and abolished the direct grant system. A few years later, when the assisted places scheme was devised, Abingdon offered places under the scheme, and it has continued to do so to this day.
Some schools were badly affected when socialism dealt that last blow to the direct grant school system. Some schools were weakened, although others were strengthened. Fortunately, Abingdon was one of the latter, and it has flourished as a fully independent school. One effect of axing the direct grant scheme was universal to all the schools that operated it: those schools became more, not less, elitist. All the talk about help for the many


and not for the few is nonsense. Abolishing the scheme made schools more elitist, against the wishes of most of them. Today, many of those schools are the same ones that offer assisted places, continuing to provide an excellent education for bright children from less-advantaged backgrounds.
The Education (Schools) Bill shows the cycle coming round again. It is instructive to note that the Bill has been introduced so early in the Parliament and that Ministers are railroading it through as fast as they can. There is no pretence that this is a constitutional Bill. The only reason for having its Committee stage on the Floor of the House is so that Ministers can bang it through as quickly as possible. We are beginning to discover what lies at the heart of the brave new Labour Government and of their brave new world.
Ministers prate about modernisation, but the Bill is about destruction. It will do nothing to make life better for anyone. The Bill—with clause 1 at its heart—will not improve a single child's education. In the years to come, however, it will damage the education of tens of thousands of children. The Government claim that their priorities are "education, education and education", but the message that the public will draw from the Bill is one of "destruction, destruction and destruction".
The Bill does not build for the future, and none of its provisions will help anyone. Conservative Members have made that point with devastating accuracy, but we still await any convincing response from the Minister. He sits on the Treasury Bench, with all his smirking arrogance, and refuses to deal with the points that we are making—he smirks even now.
Where are the answers to the questions asked by my hon. Friends about the effects of the savings? What savings will the Bill achieve after children are displaced out of the independent system and provided places in the maintained sector? From where will the savings come? How many extra teachers to reduce class sizes will the Bill provide? The Minister does not know. He knows, as the independent studies have shown, that the figures do not add up.
The Bill comes down to destruction—from dogma, from envy and for the sake of a soundbite. At the beginning of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) spoke about soundbites, at which point, sure enough, a soundbite was delivered. I did not hear a bleeper—it must have been one of those silent devices—but, nevertheless, the words came from the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas): "for the many and not for the few."
I hope that the Committee will reject clause 1 for many reasons. The main reason, however, is that education should be about excellence. After all the previous Labour Government's actions on education, Ministers should have learnt—but they have not—that it is very easy to destroy and to eliminate the good, but that it is much more difficult to build. For a Government who claim to be about building the new Britain, they are off to a pretty poor start.
I should like to hear a reply from the Minister, and he had plenty of opportunity to do so during the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who gave a most splendid and

accomplished performance. Today, we witnessed the birth of a parliamentary star. Will the Minister answer the questions? I doubt it.
At the end of the next academic year, when the first effects of this vicious measure begin to bite, how much money will be available? How will the Minister use that money to achieve the much-vaunted target of reducing class sizes? We do not know; he does not know—

Mr. Steen: rose—

Mr. Maude: Perhaps my hon. Friend knows.

Mr. Steen: I wonder whether my hon. Friend can help my understanding of what the Government are trying to do. All the schools in my constituency are full. Each year, 1,011 children join the assisted places scheme. Where will those 1,011 children go when the Government get rid of the scheme? I cannot get an answer to that from the Government, so perhaps my hon. Friend can help me.

8 pm

Mr. Maude: I would love to help my hon. Friend; it is a question I have been asking. My constituency contains one of the great historic educational establishments in this country, Christ's Hospital. Like my old school of Abingdon, Christ's Hospital has always had the historic mission of providing outstanding education solely for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Most of the support for those children comes from its own foundation. Because of the generosity of philanthropists over the century, the school has a large foundation which is used in the best possible way to help children from disadvantaged families. It also takes up places under the assisted places scheme, and it does a terrific job for those children.
As in my hon. Friend's constituency, most of the schools in my constituency are full. It is an area with an expanding population. I do not know where those children who are denied the opportunity to take up an assisted place, at Christ's Hospital and other local schools, will go. We want the Minister to answer those questions, but we see no sign of him doing so.
I want to make another point about the destructive kernel of the Bill, which is contained in this clause. It relates to the way it was justified by the Prime Minister and other Front-Bench spokesmen during and before the election campaign. They said that the assisted places scheme was a subsidy to the private sector, making it appear that profiteering organisations were making money out of the scheme. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that that remark was made out of simple ignorance and was not a deliberate distortion of the truth. The Minister will correct me if I am being too generous—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Government are too arrogant to admit that they are wrong and apologise. That was made abundantly clear yesterday.
The soundbite use to justify the Bill is that the scheme is a subsidy to the private sector. That is wrong. For reasons that I have explained, I know Abingdon school better than most. There, every assisted place is subsidised by the school to the tune of £750 a year. It does no service to the finances of Abingdon school to take on boys with assisted places. Indeed, the school would be considerably better off without assisted places. It is a flourishing school that can fill its places with boys paying full fees. Abolition


of assisted places is not a problem for the school—but it is a problem for the boys who would have had those places. Incidentally, those places are subsidised by the full-fee-paying boys.
If the Bill is passed, that school, against its wishes, will become more exclusive and more elitist. It will continue to provide excellent education, but only for those who can afford it. Because we take seriously our mission to provide excellent schooling for disadvantaged children, we, like other schools, will do our best to provide assistance through our foundation—meagre though it is at Abingdon—so that the benefits of a social mix and excellent education can be provided as widely as possible. However, it will be difficult. The inevitable, destructive truth is that schools like Abingdon will be able to spread their benefits less widely.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will make a better fist of justifying the Bill than he has done so far. All that I have heard from him and his colleagues is the language of destruction. They do not like the scheme because it is for the few. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said, there are plenty of schemes that are for the few, but I do not hear the Government proposing to abolish them. Perhaps they will do that later. When the Minister gets going with his binge of arrogant and destructive activity, perhaps he will tell us that there is more to come. The language is one of dogmatism, spite, destruction and envy. It is an arrogant determination to drive the Bill through, regardless of its merits and regardless of the children who will be affected.
The arrogant way in which the Minister disdains to answer the questions put to him makes me think that he is ashamed of the Bill. I will do him the credit of believing that he wants to improve education overall and that deep in his heart he knows that the Bill goes in the other direction. He knows that the assisted places scheme provides, at a modest cost per place, an excellent education for a moderate number of disadvantaged children.

Mr. Byers: rose—

Mr. Maude: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will answer our questions.

Mr. Byers: Will the hon. Gentleman, who is the chairman of the governors of Abingdon school, tell us why, if the assisted places scheme is so popular and such a success, of the 106 places available at the school in 1996–97, only 89 have been taken up?

Mr. Maude: Some governors saw the hon. Gentleman coming. They heard his vindictive language, and that of his colleagues. They thought—I tried to persuade them that they were wrong, but I failed—that a Labour Government might be coming and that the first thing they would do was to act in this vindictive and malicious way and destroy the scheme. They therefore reluctantly decided to wind down the number of places. It was very much against their wishes. The governors—this is true of all assisted places schools—would have preferred the scheme to remain, albeit at some financial cost to the school, so that the school could continue with its historic

mission of helping bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds. I happen to mind about that; I am sorry that the Minister does not.

Mr. Michael Jack: I want to address my remarks to the first few lines of clause 1, in particular the words
shall cease to have effect".
I want to explain why I do not believe that the Bill should proceed—and clause 1 is clearly essential to the Bill. I believe that the assisted places scheme should continue.
I declare an interest in that my wife is a state school teacher. Because of her experience, especially in reception and primary classes, I have some knowledge of some of the reasons that lie behind the Government's arguments justifying the Bill.
It is true that, in certain circumstances, the size of a class can have an effect on the ability of the teacher to control it and provide good-quality education for the pupils in his or her care. During the general election campaign, when the matter first came up for discussion, I was much taken by Ofsted's report on the issue. It made it clear that it was the quality of education that counted above all else—it was the quality of the teaching rather than the absolute number of pupils in a class.
I watched on the parliamentary television link earlier as the Minister refused to give the Committee any information in answer to specific questions. I oppose the clause standing part of the Bill because we have no idea of the effects of the measure. It is like me giving a friend a blank cheque and telling him to go away and fill in the details later, hoping that my account will have the balance to stand it.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have sought information about the effects of the clause and argued that the scheme should not cease to have effect. They have been trying to elicit answers about finances. I am amazed that any Minister should come before a Committee unable to do better than say that, if the clause had effect, he might have £100 million by the end of the Parliament. The fact that he is unable to give us details of the phased release of the money, unable to give us details of how the money would be given to local authorities and unable to give us an assurance that the money would find its way directly to primary school classrooms is—or, to be grammatically correct, are—three good reasons why the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
The Government claim to have an interest in the people of Britain, but the little people of Britain will lose out as a result of the clause. I remember meeting Mr. and Mrs. Smith—they are real people—when I lived in Southport 15 years ago. Ellen Smith used to go out and do cleaning jobs to earn enough money to add to her husband's salary of £8,500 so that they could make their contribution to the assisted place for their bright son to go to Merchant Taylors' school in Liverpool. Those are the people whom the Labour party might at one time have thought of as their natural supporters, but the clause is designed to trample on the Ellen Smiths of this world and their children and deny them the choice and opportunity that allowed that young man go on to obtain a first-class degree at university. The Southport area did not have all the options that the Minister may tell me there might be in his brave new world of education.
I acknowledge that there is some logic in the Bill from the Minister's point of view. However, before the election, I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) about the scheme. She wrote to me last November, saying that officials in the Department for Education and Employment had calculated a net saving of £34 million, not taking into account any capital expenditure that would have to be made on secondary schools to accommodate those pupils not going on the assisted places scheme.
I kept that letter with me until a public meeting on the subject during the election campaign. When I pulled out the Minister's letter, which I had treasured for the occasion, and quoted the figure, my Labour opponent—this gave us an idea of the arrogance of the Government—said, "You're wrong. You can't believe Government figures." The same officials are now advising the Minister. He is already disagreeing with his officials, and a representative of his party says that the official figures are wrong.
I asked the Labour candidate for his figures. He said that the saving would be £68 million, which would buy 2,300 extra teachers. He must have been right on that, because all Labour candidates were programmed to give the right answer about the assisted places scheme and therefore the effects of the clause. A quick division of that figure by the approximately 100 education authorities around the country led me to believe that there would be all of 23 extra teachers, on average, per authority.
I challenged my opponent to guarantee that the plan would enable Labour to deliver on its pledge for smaller class sizes. No answer carne. If the Minister wants to convince me that the clause should stand part of the Bill—I do not expect him to give me a detailed answer now, because that would be asking too much in the light of his track record during the debate—will he, in the spirit of open government and making information available, put in the Library a detailed breakdown analysis?
8.15 pm
Half the work has been done for the Minister. There have been answers to parliamentary questions showing class sizes by local education authority. What is missing is information on how many teachers would be needed in each education authority to fix the problem. If clause 1 is passed, the Government will be able to get hold of some money to fix the problem. Perhaps the Minister will tell us, in a written answer or a statement placed in the Library, how the scheme will work. I do not think that they can deliver on their promise.
We do not know how the money will be released, how it will be allocated to local authorities and whether it will ever reach the schools that it is intended to reach.

Mr. Clappison: Perhaps I can help my right hon. Friend. Some research was done before the election, showing that the cost of employing the teachers required to reduce class sizes by the necessary amount was about £68 million. By some miracle, that was the figure repeated by the Labour candidates as the anticipated savings.

Now that the Labour party has come into government, I have asked the same question, and the answer has vanished. They cannot now say what the cost will be.

Mr. Jack: I am grateful for that contribution. The Minister should go back to the author of the information and inquire. The Committee is being invited to endorse the clause. We ought to have the information if we are to do so. How can we judge the validity of the measure without it?

Mr. Steen: Am I right in thinking that the money saved from the scheme will go to primary schools, but the savings will come from assisted places for children going to secondary schools?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend brings me neatly to a second area of concern—another reason why I do not believe that the assisted places scheme as defined in the clause should cease to have effect. Let me go back to the letter that I received from my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. I was anxious to discover the relationship between the amount spent on secondary schools through the standard spending assessment formula and the costs of the assisted places scheme.
My hon. Friend made it clear that I could not make a one-to-one comparison, because the money that went through the standard spending assessment formula did not take into account capital and other expenses, but there was a relationship. I was surprised by how close the cost of an assisted place was to the amount of money allocated to secondary schools in Lancashire under the standard spending assessment. I could not understand how Lancashire education authority would find any extra money to reduce primary school class sizes. Unfortunately—perhaps this is a comment against me—Lancashire is towards the top of the table for class sizes.
We could have a debate on classroom assistants and other matters, but you would rightly bring back to order, Mr. Martin, so I shall not. The Minister said nothing about where Lancashire would find the extra money to deliver smaller class sizes when the education authority would be busy paying the money to the secondary schools, almost pound for pound.
It is incumbent on the Minister, if he wants the Committee to allow clause 1 to stand part, to convince us with some detail. It is rank arrogance for him to say that he will have the money by the turn of the century and that everything will be all right. Governments do not operate with blank cheques, and he knows that, when he presents his proposal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury, the Treasury officials—I know this, as, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), I have been there—will crawl over it and will have him for breakfast, lunch and tea unless he has the detail. The Minister is new to the job so I am giving give him fair warning that he needs that amount of detail.
My third concern relates to the state schools in my constituency for which I have fought tirelessly and for which I eventually won large sums of money to assist them in their expansion.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: A real hero.

Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his acknowledgement of my singular efforts in that regard.


I shall carry on fighting because I believe in choice and diversity and I think that all schools require the right resources to deliver education to our children. I shall fight for my state schools as hard as I shall for any other schools in my constituency. Those schools, however, would be the first to tell me that, because they did so well under the previous Government and because they are attractive schools, they are already bulging at the seams and struggling to meet demand. Where is the money coming from in Lancashire to expand those schools?

Mr. Forth: In case anyone should doubt what my right hon. Friend is saying, I should point out that I was the recipient of his assiduous and almost unending lobbying on behalf of schools in his constituency when I had the privilege to serve in the Department for Education and Employment. In case some newly elected colleagues imagine that what my right hon. Friend is saying is a routine or ritual statement, I happily confirm that he was indeed assiduous and persistent and very often, I am happy to say, successful in promoting the interests of state schools in his constituency.

Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for acknowledging and underpinning the thrust of my argument. That leads me to a further strand of thinking on the subject and another reason why I do not want clause 1 to stand part. I want to make certain that the existing legislation remains in effect.

Mr. Maude: On the issue of where state schools will get the money from to accommodate children displaced from the independent system by the abolition of the assisted places scheme, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, under the proposal, successful schools that are already full to capacity will have to accept more children as a result of displacement and that the effect will be yet more destruction—in this case, the destruction of choice because more places will be taken up by default? Is that not yet more reckless damage caused by this irresponsible Government?

Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend is correct. I wish that he could have been with me during the general election campaign. I remember walking along one particular road alongside the Royal Lytham golf club. It comprised a terrace of modest houses. A lady said that she wanted to talk to me about education, and I thought that I was going to get a right earful. She was a single mother worried about assisted places. She was a woman of modest means trying to do the best for her son and his future. I put our arguments to her, and I trust that she listened. That is the human dimension that the Minister of the people's party chooses to scorn. To put it bluntly, to judge from his performance so far, the Minister could not care less about some of the people whom his party claims to represent.
I now develop my next line of thought. The Government have established a task force comprising Professor Brighouse and Mr. Woodhead. There will be a head-to-head confrontation, and I am sure that tickets will sold. It will be interesting to see what happens. However, I accept its establishment in the right spirit and believe that it is intended to improve standards. It is as though the Government have adopted a Pontius Pilate approach—they wash their hands of decisions and pass them on to other people. That is the route that they have chosen.
In the event of the task force—this august body—concluding that teaching standards and resources for teachers would contribute more to children's education at primary level than the abolition of the assisted places scheme, would the Minister be prepared to recognise that, if he gets the money, he may have other calls on it and therefore might not be able to deliver on primary school class size reductions? If the Minister is to be true to the Chancellor's edict that he stay within his departmental spending limit, I have a feeling in my bones that the money is not necessarily destined for the place about which the Minister has told us.
My final argument picks up a point already made by right hon. and hon. Friends and relates to a very real worry. In the last financial year, the county of Lancashire last year chose to keep back some £10 million of the additional funding provided by the former Government. The Government gave £26.3 million extra to Lancashire, but only £16 million reached the schools. The issue of class sizes in Lancashire could have been dealt with had the local authority remitted all the money to primary schools. Clause 1 should not stand part, because it provides no guarantee that the money will reach the schools.
There is a breathtaking lack of detail in the legislation. The research paper prepared by the Library contains the following sentence:
Until the White Paper is published, no detail of the proposal is available although areas which might appear to require legislation include a duty on LEAs or governing bodies to reduce class sizes".
Even if the money gets where it is supposed to, we do not know that anyone will have to do anything with it, but the Minister is asking the Opposition and the Committee to agree to clause 1 stand part without providing any of the detail that he needs to win his argument.

Mr. Nicholls: I should like briefly to develop a theme that my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) mentioned a moment ago and to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) referred. It concerns the missing ingredient in the clause stand part debate.
We have all been trying to understand the justification for the Bill. There is a great temptation to assume that the reasons for the proposals have something to do with the reasons advanced from the Dispatch Box. However, it does not work like that. If we are being asked to accept that the unhappy price of getting rid of the assisted places scheme is that there will be a great deal more money to spend on dealing with overcrowded classrooms, which is supposed to be the justification for this squalid little measure, it simply does not stand up.
My hon. Friend for South Hams gave us details from his own constituency—

Mr. Steen: For Totnes.

Mr. Nicholls: And Totnes, too. He asked the valid question, where were the 1,100 pupils currently on the scheme going to go? The short and brutal answer is that they will go into the existing classrooms of schools in his constituency. The idea that one can do an arithmetical calculation using figures plucked figures out of the air and disseminated to every Labour candidate, saying, "Voilà"—as we are supposed to say in these


communautaire times, and probably in German, too—and that, suddenly, all the extra classrooms, the 23 or so teachers and equipment will materialise is complete nonsense. It is patently obvious that if a child who is currently being educated in the independent sector joins the maintained sector, an extra cost is placed on the maintained sector. It is not true that the state sector has a monopoly on economic excellence. If it is to cost money to educate a child in the independent sector, it will cost money to educate him in the state sector.

Mr. Steen: I have entered the debate because I am desperately worried about where the 1,011 children in Devon who are seeking assisted places every year will go. Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of schools in my constituency have limited the number of children they can take every year? In 1989, the Totnes Kevick school—the former grammar school—persuaded the then Secretary of State to place a limit of 240 on the number of children who could enter each year. Other schools all over the country have the same limits, under which they cannot, by law, take any more pupils. If that is so, the situation in Devon will be extremely serious.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. As I have already told the hon. Gentleman, interventions should be much shorter.

Mr. Nicholls: I understand what you are saying, Mr. Martin. Equally, I understand the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen).
Some people will say that the class sizes in my hon. Friend's constituency are too large. If time allowed—and it may—we could talk about the significance of class sizes. We could have a debate about the fact that excellence in teaching is far more important than mere class size. Many people would say that class sizes in Devon are already too large. I shall give my hon. Friend an answer to his question. He may feel personal grief as the Member of Parliament for that constituency, but it is not his responsibility. The 1,011 children will go into classrooms that are, for the most part, already full.
If we are looking for justification for this nasty, poisonous Bill, we can see that it has nothing to do with excellence or choice in education or enhancing options for people. In short, it has nothing to do with money or class size.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith>: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and I simply wish to add to it and to ask him a question. When he looked at the league tables to see which schools were scoring highest, he will have noticed that a large number had class sizes well above the number that Labour Members maintain are necessary for success. My children attend a grant-maintained school that was 75th in the country and has class sizes that would be unacceptable according to the scales advocated by the Labour party. League table results are linked to the quality of teaching, not necessarily to the number of pupils in each class.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The clause relates to assisted places and their abolition, not class sizes.

Mr. Nicholls: I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) says. I remember a curious incident during the election campaign. I went to see the headmaster of a school in my constituency that featured highly in the league tables to ask him whether he found that numbers in his school were being depleted as a result of the assisted places scheme. He told me that they were not.
I said that, given the class sizes of his school, he must find that the assisted places scheme drew away his pupils. He replied, "No." He said that in his classrooms children sat in rows and were taught by a teacher who thought that it was his job to teach children, not to get them into little informal groups and ask them how they should be educated. The headmaster found that, even with class sizes that Labour Members would find unacceptable, the assisted places scheme was not a threat to the numbers in his school, because of the teaching methods used there.
If we were trying to justify the measure and the clause, we would not say that they related to money—they cannot. The economic arguments do not stack up. In some ways, the situation is even worse. It sounds such a good idea to say to the public that the money saved will go directly into the classroom, but it does not work that way in practice. Insiders involved in government or local government know that it does not work like that. We do not ring-fence money in that way.
The idea that the Minister will pick up the money and say that he is to send it down to the schools in our constituencies is not right—that is not how it is done. If there were to be a saving—and there will not be—it would go to the Treasury coffers to be disbursed through the standard spending assessment and the like. Even if there were to be a saving, the money would not go to the schools in that way.

Mr. Duncan Smith: rose—

Mr. Nicholls: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but his intervention must be on the subject of the assisted places scheme.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The money saved on the APS presents another problem. Successful schools are popular and there is pressure on their class sizes. Are we saying that the local authorities, many of which have opposed those schools and the way in which they have been set up, will redirect more money to them and leave the other schools with a bad feeling? Or will they blanket the money across all the schools to no purpose?

Mr. Nicholls: Who knows? I suspect that the money will be spread across the whole lot. I hope that my hon. Friend can expand on that point in more detail in his own contribution.

Mr. Steen: I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember this incident—knowing how assiduous he is, I am sure that he was present at the time. I do not know how many of my other hon. Friends will recall it, as very few of them were Members of Parliament when the Conservatives were in government.
I asked the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), whether she would ring-fence money on education so that it could be applied exclusively to a particular school activity in Devon. She said that that


could not be done without primary legislation. If that is so, can my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholla)explain how the money realilsed firm the abolition of the APS Can go to the schools without primaryu legislation?

Mr. Nicholls: It cannot be done. Under the present system and the funding of local authorities there is no way in which the money could be ring-fenced. My hon. Friend mentioned primary legislation. Perhaps he thinks that the Government, who have shown such breathtaking arrogance and contempt for parliamentary procedures, can pass the primary legislation that is necessary in double-quick time. But that cannot happen. The Minister is terrified of the idea of ring fencing. If we ever reach a situation whereby parcels of money can be ring-fenced for anything, every daft group in the country will say to the Labour Government, "You used to be one of us and we want you to fund our particular concern." The Camden lesbian refuge will say, "We want some money ring-fenced for us."

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting wide of the clause.

Mr. Nicholls: There will be no assisted places for ladies in that category in Camden, because one cannot ring-fence sums of money in that way—the system would not work.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the extra money that my LEA might get may provide a solution to the problem in Gloucestershire? The average expenditure per primary and secondary school pupils is about half that of the highest level of expenditure in London. Therefore, I may be able to argue with the Government that, according to their logic, they should give my LEA more money for the schools.

Mr. Nicholls: When my hon. Friend debates the APS with the Government, I wish him luck, but I am not sure that he will be successful. Conservative Members may try to give a new incoming Government the benefit of the doubt. We make the mistake of arguing against the proposition in the terms in which it is put to us. We have spent much time this evening considering the detail of the money that will be available to reduce class sizes in other schools, but there is no point in considering that, for two reasons. The first is that the money is not there and the second is that it was never intended that it should be.
The explanation for the introduction of the legislation does not lie in class sizes or money, but in one particular word. I hope that it is not unparliamentary and I shall stand corrected if it is. That word is socialism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am quite happy to withdraw the word if necessary, Mr. Martin. I gather from your silence, however, that I am still allowed to use it in this House. The explanation for this measure is socialism.
The Government's problem is that they have come to power on a Conservative agenda. They have taken our values and our policies, but what are they to offer their Members of Parliament to keep them happy? How on earth are they to control 450 of them while they continue with their "Torier than thou" attitude? They have had to come up with one or two measures, such as this one, dressed up to look reasonable but actually generated by something else.
The Government's policy on assisted places cannot be reconciled with logic or economic sense, but it is justifiable in terms of socialism. This is a highly socialist measuire—

Mr. Maude: I agree with what my hon. Friend has been saying. I draw his attention to what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said on Second Reading, when he actually used the word:
In short, it is a socialist Bill and as such it has my support"— [Official Report, 2 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 35.]

Mr. Nicholls: That is interesting. The right hon. Gentleman has always been an engaging and cheerful speaker; now he reveals himself to be an honest one, too. This measure is no more designed to assist children than the abolition of fox hunting will be designed to assist foxes. The latter is another measure that will be thrown to Labour Back Benchers as a good socialist idea.
The Bill represents the abolition of choice—making it impossible for people who cannot afford education in the independent sector to get it via the direct grant system or by way of the assisted places scheme. The result is one-way traffic in the system. During the election campaign, it was often said that the scheme was designed to assist the rich. Far from it. Someone has to live on very modest means to get a place on the scheme, and rightly so.
The idea that everyone who can afford private education in the independent sector procures it is nonsense. I know many people who can certainly afford to send their children to boarding school but choose not to do so. They take the view that it would not be right for their children, and that they want to educate them in the state sector—

Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Prime Minister, for instance.

Mr. Nicholls: I shall come to him shortly. These people have the means to afford an independent education but have opted instead for day schools in the maintained sector.
The logic of the Labour party's position—it might once have been associated more with the Conservative party—is that, if people have the money, the Government do not mind if they spend it on private education; but if they do not have the money, the Government will make sure that they get no private education.
There is a certain irony in the fact that the Bill, socialist measure though it is, has been introduced by a party whose leader, the Prime Minister, did not have to rely on the assisted places scheme for a private education. In fact, he came from the sort of background where it was taken for granted that he would be able to go into the independent sector. He also had the quality of mind, I gather, to qualify for a scholarship. How long will it be before, on egalitarian grounds, those who are bright enough to win scholarships will not be allowed to take them up?

Mr. Steen: I do not want to delay my hon. Friend's brilliant speech, but I thought I might be able to help him. Was he present when the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said, in answer to a question from me,


that the assisted places scheme was not for the 40 per cent. with incomes under £10,000 a year; it was for Lloyd's underwriters and for women who had divorced with massive capital settlements? Not only is this a socialist measure; it is old socialism rearing its ugly head again.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right to remind us of that extraordinary statement. Lloyd's has not had an easy time of it recently, but I still do not believe that any Lloyd's underwriter is earning less than £10,400 a year. Abolishing the assisted places scheme is a hangover from the old days when the Labour party used to campaign on the promise to abolish private education, even though the Labour hierarchy had often benefited from it. No longer can Labour promise to do that, because the European convention on human rights states that abolishing religious education is illegal. So now Labour has to live with private education, but the Government intend to ensure from now on that the very people whom they are supposed to represent and who cannot afford such education by any other means will be made to suffer.
Not a single child will benefit from this legislation. No child who would have been able to join his brother or sister in a particular school will benefit from it, either; and people will not even be able to draw comfort from the idea that class sizes have declined or that teacher numbers have risen. In a sedentary heckle earlier this evening, perhaps prompted by one of those pagers that gives Labour Members their information, it was even suggested that, if something is good for the majority, what happens to the minority does not matter. That is an extraordinary statement for any party with pretensions to government.
Burke and a hundred other commentators through the ages have all agreed on the difference between democracy and mob rule. The essence of democracy is the protection of minority rights, not the extinguishing of minority rights.

Mr. Hayes: Given my hon. Friend's obvious breadth of reading and intellect, would he care to wax lyrical at somewhat greater length on the tensions between liberty and equality?

Mr. Nicholls: I would indeed, but only, Mr. Martin, in relation to the assisted places scheme—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. This is a serious matter and we must debate the clause.

Mr. Nicholls: I hope that I have been doing that, Mr. Martin. I shall not be tempted by my hon. Friend's eloquence on this occasion.
Whatever else unites or disunites us, we all want to do the very best for our children. It would be one thing if a parent could say that his child's class size had decreased as a result of a manifest unfairness being wrought on his neighbour. He might say to himself, "If the price of my child's smaller class is taking away someone else's rights, knocking away the ladder of opportunity and narrowing elitism, that is a price that has to be paid to ensure more teachers for my child's school." Such an argument is conceivable and would at least be understandable. But this

Bill will not even achieve that, and it is not designed to help a single child. It is illogical and it makes no fiscal sense. It is all about telling Labour Members, before whom I gaily scatter my pearls, "We may pretend to be Tories but there is some socialist blood left in us yet."

Mr. Byers: rose—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Byers: Oh, dear. I am sorry.
We have had a very helpful debate on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, which allowed Members to address more freely issues that we were unable to address in relation to amendments tabled to clause 1. I want to address issues that Opposition Members have raised in the clause stand part debate. It is the appropriate time to do so. It would have been inappropriate to do so on a narrowly focused debate on deferring the measures for three years. I hope that, in the time available to me, I can answer the questions that Opposition Members have asked, because significant issues have been raised concerning the thrust of the measure.
More than £1 billion has been spent on the assisted places scheme since its introduction. The issue before the House tonight is the reordering of priorities. Opposition Members have made their priorities clear, as they are entitled to, and have said that their priorities are to protect the assisted places scheme and the 40,000 or so people who benefit from it. Our priority is to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. That is where opinion in the House divides.

Mr. Clappison: On priorities, may I have a straight answer to the following question? Does the Minister maintain that the savings from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme will be sufficient to pay for a reduction in class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds, or will other be money be needed? Will the savings be sufficient—yes or no?

Mr. Keith Simpson: Maybe.

Mr. Byers: Not maybe. I was coming to that, but as the hon. Gentleman raised it, I shall do so now.
Opposition Members referred to an independent work commissioned for the National Foundation for Educational Research on the cost of reducing class sizes, and to work commissioned by ISIS from the Institute of Public Finance. Those two reports differed enormously in their conclusions as to costings, but there is one cost on which they agree—a cost of £65 million to reduce class sizes of five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 or fewer. I am confident that, within the £100 million savings that we shall make by the year 2000, we shall deliver on that commitment and that, in addition, we shall have more funding available, in addition to the £65 million, to meet any additional costs that would arise from taking the 10,000 or so pupils a year who will not be going on the assisted places scheme but who will instead enter the maintained sector.
Our approach in government contrasts markedly with the approach of the Conservative Government. In the past 10 years, 450,000 additional pupils entered the maintained sector, while the number of teachers dropped by 6,000.

Mr. Jack: Last November, officials of the Department for Education and Employment confirmed by letter to me


a saving effectively a third less than the figure that the Minister has quoted—I believe that it was £24 million to £68 million. What has changed since last November in the detailed methodology used to calculate those numbers? Although there has been a change of Government, I assume that officials give straight replies to Ministers, whichever Government are in power.

Mr. Byers: I am sure that officials do give straight replies to questions. As far as I am concerned, the information that we have given Opposition Members in replies to parliamentary questions reflects the fact that £100 million will be saved by the turn of the century. I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman tonight about the precise method by which those figures are calculated, but I shall write and let him know the process that has been used by officials. I am confident that the officials who replied in November were impartial then, they will have been impartial in the parliamentary replies given in recent days.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Can the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that any school that encounters extra pupils as a result of the abolition of the assisted places scheme will not be financially worse off—that the school will be fully recompensed for those extra pupils?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman brings me to the points that I want to make about the White Paper, which we shall publish towards the end of June. If he can wait a few minutes, I shall try to address his concerns later, because the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) wants to intervene again.

Mr. Clappison: I appreciate the Minister's generosity in giving way again. The figures that he quoted from the NFER were an annual figure for teachers' salaries of between £60 million and £70 million. Those figures coincided with the Institute of Public Finance's assessment, without taking account of capital costs. Over two years, that amounts to teachers' salaries of £130 million without any capital costs, which is less than the sum that the Minister has told us will be saved—£100 million. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, on the figures he has given, the savings will not be sufficient? If he does know the costings, why did he not tell me so in the written answer?

Mr. Byers: I am afraid that the hon. Member is confusing two streams of finance—revenue and capital. The assisted places scheme is releasing revenue money, which we shall use for the benefit of teachers' salaries. As he is aware, capital is dealt with differently in terms of public expenditure.

Mr. Steen: rose—

Mr. Duncan Smith: rose—

Mr. Byers: I give way to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), but then I must make some progress.

Mr. Steen: I am worried about only one issue. I have repeatedly asked this question: will the Minister give me an answer? In my county of Devon 1,011 children have assisted places. In my constituency, all the secondary

schools are limited and full. What are we going to do with the 1,011 children on the assisted places scheme? Where will they go? Will more capital be available for building, and more grants of planning permission? How will we put those 1,011 children into secondary schools in Devon?

Mr. Byers: We have said that we shall publish a White Paper towards the end of June. It will address the specific issues regarding the way in which class sizes are to be reduced and the mechanism that we shall use, after consultation with the local education authorities, to achieve those class size reductions.

Mr. Maude: rose—

Mr. Byers: I give way for the final time.

Mr. Maude: Will the Minister give an undertaking that the mechanism that he devises to ensure that infant class sizes are reduced will be used to ensure that no secondary school's class sizes are increased by pupils displaced from the assisted places scheme?

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is why we are committed to phasing out the assisted places scheme. Had we gone for straight abolition, there would have been the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. As we are phasing out the assisted places scheme, those difficulties will not arise.
I want to conclude by replying to two points that were made in the debate. Some independent schools are already making alternative provision. We very much welcome the steps that are being taken voluntarily by the independent sector to provide additional places, perhaps from bursaries and from their own finance. We feel that that is wholly appropriate and we have no difficulty with that approach. However, the reality is that the assisted places scheme is the ultimate opt-out. As the former Deputy Prime Minister said, it is an escape route for bright children from inner-city schools.

Mr. Clappison: rose—

Mr. Byers: No, I will not give way.
We disagree with that approach. We want to raise standards in all our schools so that all our children benefit.
Conservative Members have talked about parental choice. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said that the essence of the assisted places scheme was to promote choice and to give choice to parents. A year ago, however, when she was a member of the Conservative Government, a leaflet was produced for parents about the APS, a part of which reads:
How do I apply for a place"—
this is giving advice to a parent, and the leaflet reads clearly and starkly:
Schools select pupils according to their own rules.
"Schools select pupils"—no parental choice. In other words, parental choice is a myth. I have quoted the Government's own words—"Schools select pupils".

Mrs. Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I ask you to give me the benefit of your advice. At this stage


of our proceedings, when the Minister has intervened so prematurely, is it right that he should make remarks involving something that I did when I was a Minister and fail to give me the opportunity to intervene? I seek your advice in this instance, Mr. Martin.

The First Deputy Chairman: I can give the hon. Lady advice. The question that she raises is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Byers: Clause 1 stands at the heart of the Bill and it should stand—

Mr. Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I seek your guidance because it is clear to me, given the Minister's remarks, that there may be further contributions to the debate. Might we continue with the debate notwithstanding that the Minister has made a somewhat premature entry to our proceedings?

The First Deputy Chairman: I can only say to the hon. Member: let the Chairman chair the Committee.

Mr. Byers: Clause 1 will reduce class sizes—

Mr. Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. Martin.

The First Deputy Chairman: I hope that it is a point of order.

Mr. Clappison: Indeed it is, Mr. Martin.
May I seek your advice, on the figures that the Minister has put before the Committee as to the cost—[Interruption.] If those figures are at variance with the Minister's written answer, might the Minister have the opportunity to correct the figures in that written answer? Might he now deal with costs and tell us how much the Government's proposals will cost? Should not the Minister be given the chance—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Minister is responsible for his comments, and what he says is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Byers: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Clause 1 will reduce class sizes for the 440,000 five, six and seven-year-olds. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Mr. David Jamieson: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I should explain that the monitor is not correct. The Committee is dividing

on the closure. That fact should be placed on the record. The Question is, that the Question be now put.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Alan Duncan: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Martin.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have made a judgment. I merely put on record the fact that the monitor was wrong so that the House authorities might correct it.

Mr. Duncan: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Martin. May we start the Division again because the television screens in the Palace of Westminster were clearly wrong and colleagues were misled?

The First Deputy Chairman: Those who were in the Chamber knew what the Division was about.

Mr. Duncan: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Martin. Those who are outside the Chamber are guided by the monitors. Hon. Members outside were misled by what they saw on the screens.

The First Deputy Chairman: I can worry only about what goes on inside the Chamber. The fact of the matter is that the Division Bells rang when I announced a Division. It is up to hon. Members to come to the Chamber and discover what is going on. They can make their own judgment as to how they wish to vote, or they may decide to abstain. It is entirely up to them. The monitors are only an aid for hon. Members; they are not a necessity.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 306, Noes 52.

Division No. 16]
[9 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Byers, Stephen


Ainger, Nick
Caborn, Richard


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Austin, John
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Banks, Tony
Cann, Jamie


Barnes, Harry
Caplin, Ivor


Battle, John
Casale, Roger


Bayley, Hugh
Caton, Martin


Beard, Nigel
Cawsey, Ian



Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Benton, Joe
Chaytor, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Chidgey, David


Berry, Roger
Chisholm, Malcolm


Betts, Clive
Clapham, Michael


Blackman, Mrs Liz
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clark, Dr Lynda


Blizzard, Robert
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Borrow, David
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bradshaw, Ben
Clelland, David


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Brown, Rt Hon Nick
Coaker, Vernon


(Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Cohen, Harry


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Coleman, Iain


Buck, Ms Karen
(Hammersmith & Fulham)


Burden, Richard
Colman, Anthony (Putney)


Burgon, Colin
Connarty, Michael


Butler, Christine
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)






Cooper, Ms Yvette
Illsley, Eric


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jamieson, David


Cousins, Jim
Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)


Cranston, Ross
Johnson, Alan (Hull W)


Crausby, David
Johnson, Ms Melanie


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Ms Jenny


Davidson, Ian
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dobbin, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Keen, Alan (Feltham)


Doran, Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Drew, David
Kennedy, Charles


Drown, Ms Julia
(Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Edwards, Huw
Khabra, Piara S


Efford, Clive
Kidney, David


Ellman, Ms Louise
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ennis, Jeff
Kingham, Tessa


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Flint, Ms Caroline
Laxton, Bob


Flynn, Paul
Lepper, David


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Levitt, Tom



Foster, Don (Bath)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Michael John (Worcester)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Galbraith, Sam
Linton, Martin


Galloway, George
Livingstone, Ken


Gapes, Mike
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lock, David


Gerrard, Neil
McAvoy, Thomas


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCabe, Stephen


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Godsiff, Roger
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Goggins, Paul
McDonagh, Ms Siobhain


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maodonald, Calum


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonnell, John


Graham, Thomas
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Grant, Bernie
McIsaac, Ms Shona


Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)
McKenna, Ms Rosemary


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McNulty, Tony


Grogan, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gunnell, John
McWalter, Tony


Hain, Peter
McWilliam, John



Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hancock, Mike
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hanson, David
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Maxton, John


Healey, John
Meale, Alan


Heath, David (Somerton)
Merron, Ms Gillian


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Milburn, Alan


Hepburn, Stephen
Moffatt, Laura


Heppell, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hesford, Stephen
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hill, Keith
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morley, Elliot


Hoon, Geoffrey
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hope, Philip
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mudie, George


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Mullin, Chris


Howells, Dr Kim
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Humble, Mrs Joan
Norris, Dan


Hurst, Alan
Olner, Bill


Hutton, John
O'Neill, Martin





Opik, Lembit
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Osborne, Mrs Sandra
Southworth, Ms Helen


Palmer, Dr Nick
Squire, Ms Rachel


Pearson, Ian
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Pendry, Tom
Stevenson, George


Perham, Ms Linda
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pickthall. Colin
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pike, Peter L
Stoate, Dr Howard


Plaskitt, James
Stringer, Graham


Pollard, Kerry
Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)


Pond, Chris
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pope, Greg
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Pound, Stephen
(Dewsbury)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Primarolo, Dawn
Timms, Stephen


Prosser, Gwyn
Tipping, Paddy


Purchase, Ken
Todd, Mark


Quin, Ms Joyce
Truswell, Paul


Quinn, Lawrie
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rammell, Bill
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Rapson, Syd
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Raynsford, Nick
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Reed, Andrew (Loudhborough)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Vaz, Keith


Robertson, Rt Hon George
vis, Dr Rudi


(Hamilton S)
Walley, Ms Joan


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Ward, Ms Claire



Watts, David


Rooker, Jeff
Welsh, Andrew


Rooney, Terry
Welsh, Andrew


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
White, Brian



Whitehead, Alan


Rowlands, Ted

Wicks, Malcolm


Roy, Frank
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Ruddock, Ms Joan
(Swansea W)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Williams, Dr Alan W


Ryan, Ms Joan
(E Carmarthen)


Savidge, Malcolm
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Sawford, Phil
Willis, Phil


Sedgemore, Brian
Wills, Michael


Shaw, Jonathan
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wise, Audrey



Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wood, Mike


Singh, Marsha
Woolas, Phil


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)
Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Miss Geraldine



(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)
Mr. Jim Dowd and Mr. Graham Allen.


Smith, John (Glamorgan)





NOES


Arbuthnot, James
Hague, Rt Hon William


Bercow, John
Hammond, Philip


Brady, Graham
Hayes, John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hunter, Andrew


Clappison, James
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


(Rushcliffe)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lansley, Andrew


Cotvin, Michael
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lidington, David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Loughton, Tim


Duncan, Alan
Luff, Peter


Duncan Smith, Iain
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evans, Nigel
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fallon, Michael
May, Mrs Theresa


Forth, Eric
Merchant, Piers


Gale, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Paice, James


Green, Damian
Paterson, Owen


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Ruffley, David






St Aubyn, Nick
Whittingdale, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wilshire, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Woodward, Shaun


Steen, Anthony



Swayne, Desmond
Tellers for the Noes:


Tyrie, Andrew
Mr. Richard Ottaway and Mr. Peter Ainsworth.


Walter, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mrs. Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Is it right, after so many Conservative Members have sat solidly in the Chamber throughout the debate so far—unlike Labour Members, whose Benches have been empty for most of the debate—for the Government to show the arrogance that attaches to such a large majority, using the many to stifle the voices of the few? Does not such arrogance threaten the democratic process of legislation in the House, and prevent hon. Members with genuine constituency interests who have sat here for hour after hour from expressing the views of their constituents?

The First Deputy Chairman: The subject was fully aired and the amendments and clause were fully debated. The Government's majority has nothing to do with the Chair.

Question put accordingly, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 306, Noes 39.

Division No. 17]
[9.25 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Casale, Roger


Ainger, Nick
Caton, Martin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cawsey, Ian


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Ashton, Joe
Chaytor, David


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Chidgey, David


Austin, John
Chisholm, Malcolm


Banks, Tony
Clapham, Michael


Barnes, Harry
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Battte, John
Clark, Dr Lynda


Bayley, Hugh
(Edinburgh Pentlands)



Beard, Nigel
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clelland, David


Berry, Roger
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Blackman, Mrs Liz
Coaker, Vernon


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cohen, Harry


Blizzard, Robert
Coleman, Iain


Borrow, David
(Hammersmith & Fulham)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Colman, Anthony (Putney)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Connarty, Michael


Bradshaw, Ben
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cooper, Ms Yvette


Brown, Rt Hon Nick
Corbyn, Jeremy


(Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Corston, Ms Jean


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Cousins, Jim


Buck, Ms Karen
Cranston, Ross


Burden, Richard
Crausby, David


Burgon, Colin
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Byers, Stephen
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Darvill, Keith


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Davidson, Ian


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Cann, Jamie
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Caplin, Ivor
Dawson, Hilton





Dobbin, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Keen, Alan (Feltham)


Doran, Frank
Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)


Dowd, Jim
Kemp, Fraser


Drew, David
Kennedy, Charles


Drown, Ms Julia
(Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Edwards, Huw
Khabra, Piara S


Efford, Clive
Kidney, David


Ellman, Ms Louise
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ennis, Jeff
Kingham, Tessa


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Flint, Ms Caroline
Laxton, Bob


Flynn, Paul
Lepper, David


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Michael John (Worcester)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Galbraith, Sam
Linton, Martin


Galloway, George
Livingstone, Ken


Gapes, Mike
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lock, David


Gerrard, Neil
McAvoy, Thomas


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCabe, Stephen


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Godsiff, Roger
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Goggins, Paul
McDonagh, Ms Siobhain


Golding, Mrs Llin
Macdonald, Calum


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonnell, John


Graham, Thomas
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Grant Bernie
McIsaac, Ms Shona


Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)
McKenna, Ms Rosemary


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McNulty, Tony


Grogan, John
MacShane, Denis


Gunnell, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hain, Peter
McWalter, Tony


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McWilliam, John


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mallaber, Ms Judy


Hancock, Mike
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hanson, David
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Healey, John
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Heath, David (Somerton)
Maxton, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Meale, Alan


Hepburn, Stephen
Merron, Ms Gillian


Heppell, John
Milburn, Alan


Hesford, Stephen
Moffatt, Laura


Hill, Keith
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hinchliffe, David
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hope, Philip
Motley, Elliot


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Howells, Dr Kim
Mudie, George


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Hurst, Alan
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hutton, John
Norris, Dan


Illsley, Eric
Oner, Bill


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
O'Neill, Martin


Jamieson, David
Opik, Lembit


Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)
Osborne, Mrs Sandra


Johnson, Alan (Hull W)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Johnson, Ms Melanie
Pearson, Ian


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Ms Jenny
Pike, Peter L


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Plaskftt, James


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pond, Chris






Pound, Stephen
Stinchcombe, Paul


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stringer, Graham


Primarolo, Dawn
Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)


Prosser, Gwyn
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Quin, Ms Joyce
(Dewsbury)


Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rammell, Bill
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rapson, Syd
Timms, Stephen


Raynsford, Nick
Tipping, Paddy


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Todd, Mark


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Truswell, Paul


Robertson, Rt Hon George
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


(Hamilton S)
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rooker, Jeff
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rooney, Terry
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Vaz, Keith


Rowlands, Ted
Vis, Dr Rudi


Roy, Frank
Walley, Ms Joan


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Ward, Ms Claire


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Watts, David


Ryan, Ms Joan
White, Brian


Savidge, Malcolm
Whitehead, Alan


Sawford, Phil
Wicks, Malcolm


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Shaw, Jonathan
(Swansea W)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Dr Alan W


Shipley, Ms Debra
(E Carmarthen)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Singh, Marsha
Willis, Phil


Skinner, Dennis
Wills, Michael


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Winnick, David


Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Wood, Mike


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wyatt, Derek


Squire,Ms Rachel



Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Tellelrs for the Ayes:


Stevenson George
Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. Greg Pope.


Stewart,Ian (Eccles)




NOES


Bercow, John
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brady, Graham
Lidington, David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Loughton, Tim


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Luff, Peter


Clappison, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


(Rushcliffe)
May, Mrs Theresa


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Merchant, Piers


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Nicholls, Patrick


Duncan Smith, Iain
Paice, James


Evans, Nigel
Paterson, Owen


Fallon, Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Forth, Eric
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gale, Roger
Swayne, Desmond


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Tyrie, Andrew


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Whittingdale, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Hayes, John
Wilshire, David


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)



Hunter, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Mr. Richard Ottaway and Mr. Peter Ainsworth.


Lansley, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR EXISTING ASSISTED PUPILS

Mrs. Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 24, after 'school', insert 'and their siblings'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 24, in clause 5, page 4, line 40, after 'year', insert
`or the siblings of any such pupil'.

Mrs. Gillan: Having witnessed today's display by Labour Members, I do not suppose that they will be very interested in amendments Nos. 9 and 24. They have shown that they are not interested in stopping and thinking about the Bill's implications and, sadly, I do not believe that they will take any notice of the points that we are attempting to make by tabling this group of amendments. Although our amendments affect only a very few people, I urge the Minister to consider them very carefully. Nevertheless, I expect that the Government will treat those few people with the same contempt as they are treating all the other families whose children could have been part of the assisted places scheme, had it been allowed to continue.
The Bill will deprive brothers and sisters of the opportunity to attend the same school and of continue their education in the secondary school that they could reasonably have expected to attend. Our amendments, however, would allow siblings to take an assisted place if one is offered, which would be the fair and equitable action of a generous and fair minded Government.
In the Government's offerings to date, it has been obvious to the Opposition that Ministers are remote from the people who will be affected by the Bill. In moving amendment No. 9, I shall attempt to bring Ministers a little closer to the people they will be hurting, because, in their arrogant rush to introduce this very poor legislation, they are hurting families across the United Kingdom.
I have spoken to people associated with the assisted places scheme, and they have provided me with several examples of families who will be bitterly affected by the Bill. I have permission, with one or two exceptions, to use the names of those families, because I think that the Government must answer directly to the citizens who will be so badly disadvantaged by the Bill. I will, therefore, cite some case histories. They are not fictitious case histories, but stories of real people who will suffer because of this Bill.
Mrs. Penny Brayley is a single parent with two daughters, aged 12 and 15, on assisted places at Edgehill college in Devon. There has been a massive improvement in their academic performance since they took up their assisted places. Mrs. Brayley has also a 10-year-old son, called Benjamin, who, possibly in September 1998, would have taken up an assisted place at the same school as his sisters. Under the Bill, there will be no possibility of Benjamin joining his sisters. I hope that the Minister will think about Benjamin as this Bill is rammed through the House in a quite undemocratic way.
Another citizen of this country has two daughters on assisted places at Talbot Heath school, one aged 12 and the other 10. The 12-year-old will be able to continue


at the school until she finishes her A-levels at 18. The 10-year-old, who had a difficult time at her state primary school, has now taken up her assisted place at Talbot Heath and is extremely happy. She will be forced to make a painful and traumatic return to the state sector in one year's time. I ask the Minister to think about that child as she takes the Bill through.
Mrs. Anna James has a son on an assisted place, studying for his GCSEs at Haberdasher's Aske's boys school. She has a daughter aged 10 who has set her heart on attending the sister school, Haberdasher's Aske's girls school, in September 1998. I hope that the Minister will be able to look that child in the eye and explain to her why she cannot join her brother. That is the effect of this Bill. [Interruption.] The Ministers are sitting there laughing. That is the arrogance of this Government, who could not care less what happens to those children as a result of the Bill.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is talking about my constituents. They are not alone. There are a number of such cases at Haberdasher's Aske's school. My constituents and other parents at the school will be listening to this debate with great interest. They will want to hear a serious response from the Minister.

Mrs. Gillan: I am glad that my hon. Friend intervened. It is obvious from the smug look on the Minister's face that he could not care less about these children. I find that appalling.
Mr. James Tester has a seven-year-old son, Miles, who will start at Ardingly college on an assisted place this September—thanks to the Labour party agreeing, before the election, that I could continue with the programme. When Mr. Tester's son was offered the place, he had no hesitation in accepting, because his understanding was that his son could retain his assisted place at Ardingly until the age of 18 or, at the very least, 13. The Bill will prevent that. If Mr. Tester had known that his son would have to suffer the disruption of a return to the state sector at the age of 11, he would hot have accepted the assisted place.
The Government have already rejected our amendments to take more time in abolishing the scheme because they do not care what happens to Miles or about the disruption they are causing children and their families.

Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend is aware of the Ursuline college in my constituency. She has been helpful to the school in the past. She knows that it has a modest number of assisted places. As a convent school, it takes children from quite large families. It will be a bitter disappointment to them that their brothers and sisters will not be able to attend the same school. Surely a fundamental principle of our education system is that siblings are enabled to be educated together. Is not the Government's attitude disgraceful and sheer spite?

Mrs. Gillan: I know of the school. My hon. Friend has made an excellent point. Families do not consist of just 2.4 children plus a dog, but of perhaps three, four or five siblings. The implementation of the Bill will set brother against brother and sister against sister.
I do not want to delay the Committee for too long, but I feel strongly that Ministers have taken the Bill as a bit of a joke so far. The Minister who replied to the debate on the previous group of amendments took little notice of our reasonable questions, and did not answer them. A responsible Minister would have taken the issues that we have raised into consideration before introducing the Bill. I do not hold out much hope that the Minister—a different Minister—who is to reply to this group of amendments will take the debate any more seriously.
I should like to read a letter sent to my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment from Mrs. Ann Nourse. She writes:
My personal big concern about this Government is the discontinuance of new Assisted Places after the September 1997 intake. Mr. Blunkett has given no thought to the effect this action will inevitably have on the siblings of Assisted Place holders.
My elder son Philip is a shining example of what Assisted Places were introduced for. He is predicted to achieve straight As at GCSE this summer. My other son is 5½ years younger and wants nothing more than to attend the same school as Philip. Matthew goes to everything with us at school. He sees the high standard of concerts and drama and sports events. He even helps out at the Nearly-news and Christmas Fairs. He's involved with the school already. He was going to start in year 1 in September '98.
Ministers are not evening listening to the letter. They are just chatting away to each other. Mrs. Nourse goes on:
It seems very likely that I will have to explain that his hopes will be dashed. That he won't get an equal opportunity to Philip. He's going to be very upset and disappointed and could carry it with him for the rest of his life.
Many siblings up and down the country are going to feel like Matthew. I can see it breeding ill-will, envy and resentment in families between brothers and sisters.
My elder son Philip thinks it's so unfair on his younger brother.
Labour are ignoring the 3 years notice that should have been given which would have given more chance for siblings to be treated equally. This is all being introduced so rapidly it doesn't seem right.
She goes on to say:
Please would it be possible for you to table an amendment to the Education Bill whereby siblings of Assisted Place holders would also be offered Assisted Places beyond September 1997. Even if it was only for the next three years—the length of time that schools should receive in notice, should either side want to opt out … This would help a lot of children and families.
Even if these unfortunate children could be allowed a grant equivalent to the cost of their education in the state system, it would help some children to gain an equal education to their siblings.
The feelings of these children are being totally disregarded by Mr. Blunkett, could you not appeal to his better nature?
I should be so grateful if you could take up the plight of the siblings of Assisted Place holders please, Mrs. Shephard.
We have taken up the amendment that Mrs. Nourse asked for. Now is the chance for the Government to prove that they are not so arrogant and can listen to the voices of Mrs. Nourse, Mr. Tester, Mrs. James and Mrs. Brayley. They should think hard about the children they will affect with the Bill, but I see no sign of it and I am deeply worried about the future of a Government who can disregard children in such a cavalier fashion.
I find it hard to believe that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), who I know to be a kind and understanding person, can sit there and let the clause go through without the amendment being accepted. I hope that she will accept the amendment in the spirit in which it was tabled.


I firmly believe that any Minister who had any regard for the welfare of children would accept that it is a reasonable amendment, tabled with the best intentions to ensure that the very examples that I have laid before the Committee do not become a reality. That is a horror story for the families involved. I have no children, but I can imagine having two who are—

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report progress.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Education (Schools) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 39.

Division No. 18]
[10 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clelland, David


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Coaker, Vernon


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Cohen, Harry


Austin, John
Coleman, Iain


Banks, Tony
(Hammersmith & Fulham)


Barnes, Harry
Colman, Anthony (Putney)


Battle, John
Connarty, Michael


Bayley, Hugh
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beard, Nigel
Cooper, Ms Yvette


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benton, Joe
Corston, Ms Jean


Bermingham, Gerald
Cousins, Jim


Berry, Roger
Cranston, Ross


Betts, Clive
Crausby, David


Blackman, Mrs Liz
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blizzard, Robert
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Borrow, David
Darvill, Keith


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davidson, Ian


Bradshaw, Ben
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon
Dawson, Hilton


(Dunfermline E)
Dobbin, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Nick
Doran, Frank


(Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Drew, David


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Drown, Ms Julia


Buck, Ms Karen
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burgon, Colin
Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)


Byers, Stephen
Edwards, Huw


Caborn, Richard
Efford, Clive


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Ellman, Ms Louise


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ennis, Jeff


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna


Cann, Jamie
Flint, Ms Caroline


Caplin, Ivor
Flynn, Paul


Casale, Roger
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Caton, Martin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cawsey, Ian
Foster, Michael John (Worcester)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foulkes, George


Chaytor, David
Galloway, George


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gapes, Mike


Clapham, Michael
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Dr Lynda
Gibson, Dr Ian


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke. Charles (Norwich S)
Goaains. Paul





Golding, Mrs Llin
McIsaac, Ms Shona


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McKenna, Ms Rosemary


Graham, Thomas
Mackinlay, Andrew


Grant, Bernie
McNutty, Tony


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Grogan, John
McWalter, Tony


Gunnell, John
McWilliam, John


Hain, Peter
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Mallaber, Ms Judy


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marsden, Gorton (Blackpool S)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hanson, David
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Maxton, John


Healey, John
Meale, Alan


Heath, David (Somerton)
Merron, Ms Gillian


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Milburn, Alan


Hepburn, Stephen
Moffatt, Laura


Heppell, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hesford, Stephen
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hill, Keith
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morley, Elliot


Hoon, Geoffrey
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hope, Philip
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mudie, George


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Mullin, Chris


Howells, Dr Kim
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Humble, Mrs Joan
Norris, Dan


Hurst, Alan
Olner, Bill


Hutton, John
O'Neill, Martin


Illsley, Eric
Opik, Lembft


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Osborne, Mrs Sandra


Jamieson, David
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)
Pearson, Ian


Johnson, Alan (Hull W)
Pendry, Tom


Johnson, Ms Melanie
Perham, Ms Linda


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Ms Jenny
Pollard, Kerry


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Alan (Feltham)
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kemp, Fraser
Purchase, Ken


Khabra, Piara S
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kidney, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Kilfoyle, Peter
Radice, Giles


Kingham, Tessa
Rammell, Bill


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rapson, Syd


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Raynsford, Nick


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Laxton, Bob
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lepper, David
Robertson, Rt Hon George


Levitt, Tom
(Hamilton S)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rooker, Jeff


Linton, Martin
Rooney, Terry


Livingstone, Ken
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rowlands, Ted


Lock, David
Roy, Frank


Love, Andy
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCabe, Stephen
Savidge, Malcolm


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sawford, Phil


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonagh, Ms Siobhain
Shaw, Jonathan


Macdonald, Calum
Shipley, Ms Debra


McDonnell, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Singh, Marsha






Skinner, Dennis
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Walley, Ms Joan


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)
Watts, David


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Welsh, Andrew


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
White, Brian


Southworth, Ms Helen
Whitehead, Alan


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wicks, Malcolm


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Stevenson, George
(Swansea W)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Williams, Dr Alan W


Stinchcombe, Paul
(E Carmarthen)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)
Willis, Phil



Wills, Michael


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Winnick, David


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


(Dewsbury)
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wood, Mike


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Woolas, Phil


Timms, Stephen
Worthington, Tony


Tipping, Paddy
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Todd, Mark
Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)


Truswell, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Mr. Jim Dowd and Jane Kennedy.


Twigg, Derek (Halton)





NOES


Bercow, John
Lansley, Andrew


Brady, Graham
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Loughton, Tim


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Luff, Peter


Cash, William
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clappison, James
May, Mrs Theresa


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Merchant, Piers


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Nicholls, Patrick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Paterson, Owen



St Aubyn, Nick


Duncan Smith, Iain
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fallon, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Forth, Eric
Swayne, Desmond


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Walter, Robert


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Whittjngdale, John


Green, Damian
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Woodward, Shaun


Hayes, John



Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hunter, Andrew
Mr. David Lidington and Mr. David Wilshire.


Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have an office in Dean's yard, which you know is about half a mile from here as the crow flies. I have worked in the Dean's yard vicinity for many years, and I rely on the television monitor to let me know when a Division takes place. Since the general election, however, that monitor seems to have been working differently.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I am quite sure that the problem that the hon. Gentleman had did not interfere with the result of the debate, but I will have inquiries made.

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. A moment ago, when you were Deputy Speaker, I explained that I was suffering from a problem, but I did not quite get to the problem. The problem was that the television monitor did not show that a Division was taking place, and although the bell could be heard if one was not hard of hearing, the television monitor disclosed the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) was still on her feet. If I had not been the person that I am, and had not realised that a Division was taking place, I would have missed it.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I will have inquiries made. I believe that that deals satisfactorily with that point of order.

Mrs. Gillan: It seems some time since I last spoke to this set of amendments but, despite the levity of the House in the past couple of minutes, I want to reiterate the seriousness of amendments Nos. 9 and 24 and ask the Minister to take on board the request that the Opposition are making: to ensure that there is not division between brother and brother, brother and sister, and sister and sister; to accept amendment No. 9; and to allow siblings to continue in an assisted places scheme.
The examples that I have given are not isolated. There are many families in such circumstances, although not all younger brothers and sisters would expect to take up an assisted place like their older brothers and sisters. I ask the Minister to investigate all the families currently in the assisted places scheme and at least to find out which families are affected by the Bill. If the Government truly care about the education of those children, they will look into the matter, and give hope to Mrs. Brayley, Mrs. Nourse, Mrs. James, Mr. Tester and many other families who will have to face the problem that the Government have caused for them.
I am not very hopeful, because, as I said earlier, and as was echoed around the Chamber from the Labour Benches, they are the Government for the many, not the few, and only a few children are affected by the Bill, so I would not expect the Government to take any notice.

Mr. Nicholls: One might have expected Labour Members to adopt their traditional role in this place and express concern during the debate for those who are not able to express concern for themselves. We heard in an earlier debate—

Mr. Hayes: Is not my hon. Friend being a trifle harsh on the Conservative party and current Conservative Members? After all, it was the Conservative party throughout the 19th century which looked after those who could not look after themselves. The Conservative party introduced a range of social reforms and benefits for working people in the face of opposition from the Liberals. When the Liberals were last in government, some of them were still willing to put boys up chimneys.

Mr. Nicholls: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. If time allowed—and it may—and if it were in order, it would be instructive to go through the social and education legislation introduced by Conservative Governments over the past century and a half. One has only to think of Disraeli's great education Act to recognise that my hon. Friend's argument is correct.
I am saying that the Conservative party cares about minorities and cares also about children. That notwithstanding, the popular belief—it is certainly the belief of those on the Government Benches, as was made clear during our debates on the Bill—is that Labour Members have the monopoly of compassion.

Mr. Flynn: Hear, hear.

Mr. Nicholls: With a sedentary interjection—unfortunately, not a maiden one—a Labour Member claims that monopoly of compassion.
There are times when it is possible to act and not merely use the rhetoric of compassion. When my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) was setting out a number of cases—not manufactured ones—involving individuals throughout the country who had written to her, stating in a direct and personal way the effect that the Government's proposed legislation would have on them, the Minister who I believe will reply laughed. I find that remarkable.
We have our exchanges and, to be fair, we sometimes laugh at one another's speeches. That is a great parliamentary tradition, and there we are. It was interesting, however, that the Minister was not laughing in a good-natured way about a Conservative Member's speech. The mere idea that a child who had had an unfortunate experience in the state sector was to be transferred back there was in some way funny.
We must all have examples of children who were bullied in the state sector and bullied in the private sector as well. It is appalling when that happens. Those of us who have experienced it, or with children who have gone through it, know that it is not a matter for levity.
The marvellous feature of a society such as ours is that there is diversity in education. We do not talk about education in our constituencies as that which relates to the maintained sector alone. Education is much more diverse than that. There are great state schools as there are great private schools. All schools in their way can make an individual contribution.
There will be times, however—this implies no criticism of the schools concerned—when a child will be deeply unhappy in one school and will want to go to another. It is inevitable that within the maintained sector there will not be that degree of choice. We can hardly say that for every school there should be another one next door, on the off-chance that a child does not settle down in one or the other. However, there are difficulties, and at present there is usually an alternative, and one that will lie within the independent sector.
Most of us in this place can afford the option of the independent sector. That is fine. The Prime Minister, for example, was brilliant enough to get a scholarship to an independent school. That, too, is fine. It is fine also for those who can afford that education. We should not be concerned about looking after people such as ourselves—after all, we are all on the same salary. But what about those who cannot afford to exercise the option of enabling their children to go to a school where they will be content, able to settle down and able to be happy and secure enough to achieve their best potential?
Because this pernicious legislation has not yet gone through the House, there is an option—the child can take up an assisted place. That choice produces no excessive 

expenditure for the state. Replying to the previous debate, which was long and thoughtful, the Minister for School Standards, in an extraordinarily short and cursory speech, never tried to justify the idea that there was some saving to be made, because there is no massive saving to be made. It costs to educate a child, whether that takes place in the independent sector or in the maintained sector.
At present, there is the option for an independent school to have a child on an assisted place. That is to go. We have heard no argument that that has anything to do with money. It is possible, because naivety is a tendency that can extend right to the Benches of the House of Commons, that some hon. Members drifting into the debate tonight might have thought that there were no arguments to be made against the measure, and that it was a straightforward piece of socialist legislation dressed up in Tory clothing, which could be brushed to one side and flurried through the House of Commons just in time for them to catch the 7 o'clock train to the north country.
There must have been hon. Members who did not realise what might be at stake for individual children. They come into the Chamber and find that the Bill has no financial consequences, there are no savings, and no overcrowded schools in any of our constituencies will benefit from the passage of the Bill. Instead, they hear straightforward accounts of people who have no greater aspiration than to go to the same school as their brothers and sisters. There can hardly be—or there will not be for much longer—an hon. Member who has not received a letter from a parent—

Mr. Clappison: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not simply a matter of the time that children spend together in education? The choice of schools for siblings can affect the children and the relationships between them for the rest of their lives.

Mr. Nicholls: That is probably true. A school in the maintained sector may be particularly popular. The older child may go to that school, but the younger child will be offered another school because the first school is full. The natural response is to write to the local education authority, pointing out that the children are siblings.
Whatever disputes I sometimes have with my LEA, there have been several occasions when I have written to explain that, although the school of choice may be full and children are being sent to another nearby school, the children in question are brothers and sisters. To the credit of the LEA with which I have to deal, there has never been any difficulty with that. It has been perfectly understood. There is nothing irrational, wrong or misplaced in wanting to send a brother or sister to the same school as an older sibling.
That is how the present system works for the 95 or 96 per cent. of children who are educated in the maintained sector.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The children may come from an inner-city school that is failing. If the older child is offered an assisted place at another school, the younger brother or sister will not be able to join the older sibling, unless the amendment is passed. Is it not correct that if every child was sent out of that failing school and it was closed, the Exchequer would save money? It costs more on the SSA to send a child to an inner-city school than the average cost of the assisted places scheme.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right. As he is a gentle and fair-minded person, he does not mention the fact that the worst LEAs in the country are controlled by the Labour party.

Mr. Radice: No.

Mr. Nicholls: One might have expected some contrition from Labour Members—although perhaps not from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), who is an old Wykehamist—about the fact that the schools that people flee from are overwhelmingly those provided by Labour LEAs. Although the position might be at its most graphic in inner cities, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) pointed out, it happens all over the country.
We are dealing with nothing more nor less than the aspiration of parents to have their children educated in the school to which their siblings go, and the aspiration of children to go to the same school as their siblings. That is a perfectly straightforward situation which exists for the 96 per cent. of the population whose children are educated within the state sector.
10.30 pm
If there was a shred of principle behind the Bill—I freely accept that there is not—the Government would say, "Okay, perhaps we are simply not too good at figures, perhaps we really have not thought this through, but we have this vague waffly idea that in some way we might be able to release certain sums of money. However, when it comes to siblings, the siblings who are educated within the independent sector on the assisted places scheme should be treated in the same way as the siblings who are educated in the state sector."
Even if one accepted the so-called underlying premise of the Bill, that would be the position, but it is not. That is where the Bill's socialist credentials—to which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has already paid tribute—come shining through in all their nastiness. It does not matter about the individual aspirations of parents and children.

The Minister of State, Departments of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Richard Caborn): It does not matter.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman wants to put it on the record that children's individual aspirations do not matter. It does not matter that they want to be educated with their brothers and sisters—

Mr. Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. I do not wish to pre-empt your judgment, but my understanding is that sedentary interventions are bad enough, but interventions made from beyond the Bar of the House are particularly unacceptable.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman can safely leave such matters to the Chair.

Mr. Nicholls: There we have it.

Mr. Brady: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not merely a matter of the aspirations of children and their

parents, important though they are, but a matter of practicality? If one sibling already goes to a certain independent school, is not it a great practical problem for a hard-pressed working family to find a way of getting the other sibling to a school possibly very distant from that school when one child—

Mr. Caborn: There are always taxis.

Mr. Brady: That is all very well for those who can afford them. But I am speaking for—

Mr. Don Foster: rose—

Mr. Brady: No, I am sorry—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members must resume their seat when I am on my feet. I take this opportunity to remind all hon. Members that interventions should be short and to the point. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is a new Member, and I am not addressing just him.

Mr. Brady: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Lord. I apologise for remaining on my feet.

Mr. Nicholls: I understand exactly my hon. Friend's point.
The spirit of Marie Antoinette is alive in this House. Once upon a time the cry was, "Let them eat cake." Now we have, "Let them take taxis." I did not know that the Labour party might be prepared to reconsider the case and provide taxis to take siblings to school. I had not expected that.
The point is perfectly straightforward. One could be in favour of the principle of the Bill while still saying that, out of sheer compassion, and practicality as well, for the few siblings—I shall come to the figures in a moment—an exception should be made.

Mr. Luff: Does not the sedentary intervention suggesting that children could take taxis demonstrate the real sentiment that drives the Government? They genuinely and sincerely believe that it is rich people who benefit from the assisted places scheme. They do not understand that it is the poor people who find it so difficult to meet the costs that will result from a refusal to accept the amendment.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right. At this late hour, the problems of poor people and children who are suffering at school simply excite the insufferable arrogance of Labour Members.
I should like to know the numbers of children involved. We have heard nothing about that from the Minister; perhaps she will tell us when she winds up. I do not know how many children are involved, but I suspect that the numbers are small. If the numbers are small, the Government have even less justification for acting as they are doing. If, when the Minister winds up, she adopts the line that it is okay for people in the state sector to want to educate all their children together, but it is different for people who have chosen to use the independent sector—


if she says that, when she does not even know what the numbers are—that will say a great deal about the legislation.
The Bill will obviously be driven through the House at some hour, but we have heard nothing in the non-existent contributions from Labour Back Benchers—even from the old Wykehamists on those Benches—that justifies this piece of legislation. We have laid down the charge, in the debates on the Bill so far, that it has nothing to do with the interests of parents, children or education itself. We have charged that dogma seems to matter more than doing something to help.
It is time that we heard speeches from the Labour Back Benches. Labour Members will help to drive through a rotten, squalid, pernicious Bill, which we have shown to be bare of any shred of decency. I should have thought that a Government who are arrogant enough to drive through such a Bill might have found somebody arrogant enough to stand up and try to justify it.

Mrs. May: When my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) moved the amendments, I thought that she spoke movingly about the examples of how the Bill would affect children and families. It was disgraceful that the Ministers and others on the Government Benches chose to ignore the cases that my hon. Friend advanced; indeed, they laughed and talked among themselves. That shows either that they do not want to know the implications of the Bill or that they do not care.

Mrs. Gillan: I am glad that my hon. Friend takes as seriously as I do the examples that I tried to lay before the Committee. Does she agree that it is easy for Opposition Members to laugh because they would not qualify if they wished to send their children to independent schools—their incomes would be too high?

Mrs. May: My hon. Friend is right. That is the point that we have tried to make throughout the debates on the Bill, but Labour Members fail to understand that it genuinely is people on low incomes, poor and less privileged people, who benefit from the assisted places scheme. Those families and those children will be hard hit by the Bill, if it is passed, and by the abolition of the assisted places scheme.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing those cases into the debate, because until now we have talked mostly about statistics and numbers of children who would be affected in different constituencies and counties. It is right that we think about the impact that the Bill will have on families, especially on brothers and sisters, and the divisions that will occur if our amendments are not accepted.
Those of us who have been involved in setting admissions criteria for schools, either through the local education authorities or as governors of schools, know the importance that is always placed on the siblings issue. After social needs—or, if the school is a Church school, after religious needs—the siblings issue comes next in the admissions criteria. That is not just a fluke; it does not just happen that way. It is put next because of a general recognition by people involved in education—teachers, governors and parents—that it is important for brothers and sisters to be able to go to the same school. That is always a priority in the setting of criteria for the admission of children to particular schools.
The issue is to do with the relationships between children and within families, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) pointed out—it is also a practical issue. Parents do not want to have to take their children to different schools. We are talking not only about schools that may be physically separate, but—in the case of children who may attend state schools when their brothers or sisters are attending independent schools—about schools whose holiday dates and arrangements may be very different. That is particularly difficult for working families, who must ensure that they provide coverage while their children are on holiday.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): Does the hon. Lady think that, in areas where there is a high degree of selection, and entry is normally on the basis of academic attainment, siblings should be given preference even if they would not normally reach the academic standards required by the schools in those areas?

Mrs. May: Admissions criteria in all schools are for those schools to set. I am saying that, normally, the sibling issue figures high on the admissions criteria, because of people's acceptance of the importance of, as far as possible, allowing brothers and sisters to go to the same school.
We accept that that is not always the case. Some children will go to single-sex schools, and their siblings—if they are of a different sex—will go to different schools. The criterion is, however, accepted as extremely important because of the impact on children within the family, and on the family as a whole. If the Government reject our amendments, they will be casting that to one side, and saying that they do not care about the impact on families. They will be saying that they do not care that families are divided in the way described so movingly by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham.
We know why that is. The reason for the legislation is nothing to do with the impact on children or the quality of the education offered to them. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, this is a socialist Bill designed purely on the principle that, if everyone cannot have it, no one should.

Mr. Ian Bruce: What the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment said suggests that she has never seen children within a family. Surely children have the most direct belief in what is fair. If two children have an opportunity to go to grammar school, but one does not pass and the other does, they at least realise that the decision was fair. The hon. Lady seemed to be trying to ignore the fact that, if one child in a family has the opportunity to go to a separate school on an assisted places scheme, the denial of that opportunity must break up the belief in fairness within that family.

Mrs. May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I saw the reaction of Ministers to the cases that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham mentioned earlier, I was reminded of something that I saw in the newspaper yesterday about a proposal by the Prime Minister to open the doors of No 10 for a party. He said that there would be a fair number of "real people" there. I thought that an extremely patronising comment, but I


am afraid that it is the tone adopted by the Government and, increasingly, the attitude of the Prime Minister. Having seen the reaction to the cases that have been mentioned, I wonder whether Government Front Benchers understand anything about "real people".

Mr. Jack: Did my hon. Friend feel that the intervention of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment a few moments ago gave an indication of in-depth thinking and understanding in regard to the point that she was making?

Mrs. May: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It showed that the Government had not thought through the implications of the Bill and, on this issue, they certainly have not thought through the impact that it will have within families. That was illustrated clearly by the cases that were cited. They are not made-up stories; they are actual cases of families who say that they will have difficulties.

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend referred to admissions criteria. What will be the implication for siblings who are not able to follow their older brothers or sisters into a school on an assisted place? The younger siblings may not satisfy the admissions criteria of the school of their choice, so they may be doubly affected. They would not be able to exercise their choice by attending an independent school on an assisted place, and would not be able to enter the school of their choice in the maintained sector.

Mrs. May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has raised the valid issue of the way in which the Bill will further restrict parental choice. It is not just parental choice; the Bill also restricts the choice of children who want to go to the same school as their siblings but will be unable to do so.

Mr. Willis: I am intrigued by the hon. Lady's argument. During the general election campaign, the then Prime Minister went to great lengths to say that education policy under a new Tory Government would have a grammar school in every town, which would be centres of excellence. He said that people would aspire to go to those grammar schools through examination. Would the siblings policy that she proposes have applied to those grammar schools?

Mrs. May: I have already made the point about admissions criteria being up to individual schools. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the policy that we proposed at the general election was for a grammar school where parents wanted one. It was about parental choice.

Mr. Don Foster: rose—

Mrs. May: I should like to get on to my next point, because I have raised it before and the Minister failed to address it.
Children are aided by assisted places if they have a social need to be given boarding school education. My question is particularly valid for families with two 

children with such social need. Under our amendment, if the first child already has an assisted place, the sibling would also be able to take an assisted place. I should be grateful for an answer to my question about social need.
The Minister for School Standards is no longer present. I was hopeful when he said earlier that he would deal with all the issues that had been raised, but he did not address any of them. My point is a valid one.

Mr. Flynn: The hon. Lady referred to the Minister's temporary absence. Can she convince us that this exercise is not an act of communal hypocrisy by the Opposition? Will she explain why three quarters of Tory Members are not in the Chamber and are not available to vote? They have gone home.

Mrs. May: The only act of hypocrisy is the hypocrisy of a Labour Government who told people that they would reduce class sizes, but will not do so. People will have the wool pulled over their eyes. They will realise that, and we shall soon see how strongly they feel about this issue.
I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary, when she replies to this debate, would address the issue of social need. I know that the Minister has received written representations from charitable foundations that rely on the assisted places scheme to help children with family difficulties. That is especially relevant where one child has an assisted place and the other will not be able to take one up unless the amendment is accepted.

Mr. Swayne: I was a schoolmaster for some years, and was in teaching when the assisted places scheme was introduced. We often provided an additional assisted place for a younger sibling who was being bullied at the school down the road because the elder sibling was at a posh school. We provided places so that families could be reunited and to remove a child from the curse of bullying.

Mrs. May: If our amendment is not accepted, the legislation will retain or put in place the situation that my hon. Friend describes. A child could not be removed from the curse, as my hon. Friend puts it, and put in the same school as his sibling under the assisted places scheme. The wool is being pulled over the public's eyes.

Mr. Don Foster: The Committee fully understands the hon. Lady's passion about the sibling issue. She presents a powerful argument. Can she explain why it is that, in the 17 years or so of the operation of the assisted places scheme, the previous Administration did not give siblings an automatic opportunity to go to assisted places schools?

Mrs. May: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what we have been saying for years about the importance of choice. The cases that have been mentioned were those in which parents chose the assisted places scheme for their children, and children wanted to join their siblings in the schools operating that scheme. We are not discussing imposition. It is typical of the Liberal Democrat party under its new colours to come out with such proposals and policies.
I trust that the Minister will respond to our points about social needs because they have brushed that valid issue to one side. It is important to respond to it. I know that the charitable foundations that have raised this matter with


the Minister have not yet had a response. They have told me that they were having constructive discussions before the election with the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service. They spoke about the need to ensure that the children came first.
Unless the amendments are accepted, the Government's message will be that children do not come first, but that the paramount issue is the Government's interest in imposing the legislation. They are certainly not thinking about the interests of children or about their education.

Mr. Luff: I am in a dilemma about how to approach the amendment, because I hate the legislation with every fibre of my body. It is seriously misguided. It is a simple sop to the left wing of the Labour party, it lacks any intellectual coherence or credibility, it will not save money and it will not achieve any of the Government's hoped-for objectives. However, I sincerely want to improve the legislation where that can be done. For that reason, I shall have to move out of confrontational mode and be a supplicant by asking them to listen carefully to the power of the amendment's logic. They could and should accept it.
I speak from the experience of the general election campaign. In village after village and town after town, I stood on doorsteps in places such as Droitwich Spa, South Littleton and Drakes Broughton and met families in precisely the dilemma that we are debating. Worried mothers—they were, I think, always mothers—told me on the doorstep that their son or daughter already had an assisted place and that their younger son or daughter had ability that would enable them to gain admission to the same school.
This concerns the admissions policy point that the Minister tried to raise. Ability does tend to run in families. Children know that they can go to the same school as their elder sibling now. They will be denied that right unless the amendment is accepted. Parent after parent said to me, "Please, can you persuade Labour, if it wins, to take account of our position?" The point is genuine.
I know that the Under-Secretary is a reasonable woman and is listening carefully to the debate. I am sure that she will respond in depth, unlike her colleague the Minister for School Standards, who treated the Committee quite shamefully with his pathetic responses to serious debates. She is not of that mould.
The Government say that they want to govern for all the people. Actually, that was a slogan in the Conservative party's 1970 manifesto. It is a common theme; we all want to govern for all the people—although, apparently, under the Bill, the Government will not be governing for people who have the misfortune to live in areas with a high concentration of assisted places, such as Worcestershire, where the local education authority will have problems coping with the fall-out of the legislation.
The Government will not worry about parents who want to send their children to single-sex schools or schools with sixth forms and who have the option of doing so only through the assisted places scheme. They will not worry about those people—they are not all the people. I hope that the Government give a crumb of comfort to the very small group of people who have second and third children of the ability to go to the schools in question and who will be affected by amendment.
If the Minister does not give such people a crumb of comfort, she will be forgetting the doctrine of J. F. Kennedy, who said that the sum of all the minorities is a majority. The minorities must be cared for. The minority in question is important. The examples cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham are specific hard cases based in reality. They concern the real people of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead spoke so ably—and scathingly—in her most excellent speech.
The amendment provides the Government with an opportunity to prove that they are indeed a Government of compassion, for that is what they need to exercise to accept the amendment. The amendment does not go to the heart of the legislation; it does not destroy the whole thrust of it. We tried doing that in amendments to clause 1, and we lost—and I am very sorry that we lost. The amendment is very narrow and affects a very small group of people. It will not affect the savings one jot or iota. We are talking about the odd few hundred pounds net here or there in individual LEAs. Accepting it will prove that the Government listen to people in real distress and concern.
There are three principal reasons why the Government should accept the amendment. First, there is the simple question of family tradition. It matters in a family that, wherever possible, the children go to the same school; it is a matter of pride. It is not a sexist point.

Mr. David Heath: Even grammar schools?

Mr. Luff: Yes, even grammar schools. The hon. Gentleman does not understand. If he had been listening earlier, he would know that I have already dealt with that point.
It matters, wherever possible, that siblings go to the same school. It will not always be possible. We live in the real world. Schools can be full, children may not have the required ability and individual problems may arise. However, when an elder child has gone to a school, the younger child of the family wants, if at all possible, to go to the same school.
The second good argument for accepting the amendment is the unfairness point with which my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham dealt so ably. I will not draw on new examples, although I could cite them in my constituency. The Minister should listen to the specific examples.
Thirdly, and most important given from what I understand of the Government's perspective, is the serious inconvenience caused to working families, especially single parents, in trying to deal with different schools and fitting things into their crowded lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead spoke of different holidays. We should not seek to create imperfections where they do not already exist.
Wherever possible—it will not always be possible, because we do not live in an ideal world—we should help the typically poorer families who cannot afford the taxis, about which there were so many disparaging remarks earlier, to take their children to the same school. The point is that there will not be many of them. This is not a fundamental attack on the heart of the Bill. It is an easy and simple thing for the Government to accept.
Having been a governor of maintained schools, I know of the priority that such schools have given to siblings in their admissions policy wherever possible. That is entirely


right and honourable. When we set the admissions policies at the two schools at which I was governor, we gave that priority to siblings. It is a practice in the maintained sector, and the Government should find it in their heart to extend it to this limited area of the Bill.
I have many debates with my local education authority—Hereford and Worcester county council—about admissions policy when popular schools are full. I am not impressed by everything that the authority does—sadly it is in the wrong hands—but I am impressed by the sincerity with which it tries to deal with the problem of siblings. Although it often cannot be avoided, it tries to avoid separating them wherever possible. I pay tribute to the authority for that and I hope that the Government will follow that example.
To paraphrase the Prime Minister, it is a question of trust. What worries me is that the children who are not able to follow their siblings to the schools that they could have gone to will blame not the Minister, the Prime Minister, the Government or the Act—if it becomes an Act—but their parents. They will feel that their parents let them down in some way. They will not understand why they cannot go to the same school. I genuinely plead with the Minister, with every fibre of my body, to think most seriously about the amendment and to do something to help those families.

11 pm

Mr. St. Aubyn: I wondered whether I should stand up at all after the earlier comments of the Minister for School Standards. He made it clear, in response to points I was making about the difficulties that the legislation will cause for my constituents, that he was not interested in the impact of the Bill on people in Guildford. He was concerned merely with his master plan for the country. What a slap in the face for my constituents and, above all, what a slap in the face for nearly 10,000 people in my constituency who voted Labour at the election. I cannot help wondering how many of them would have voted Labour if they knew that the Minister responsible for the education of their children did not care one bit about what the legislation would mean for people in my constituency. I hope that, if he has the grace to reappear this evening or before it is too late, the Minister will consider retracting his remarks and giving the apology that he ought to give.
I have sired five siblings, of whom four had the good fortune to be at the same school at the same time. There is no doubt that, when members of a family are at the same school, a bond develops between them, which will be a benefit to them throughout their lives. That is why I think that it is a measure of the mean-spirited minds behind the Bill that they will not even consider at least allowing that something should be paid for siblings by the local authority.
We all know that the extra cost of the scheme on average is £1,000 per child, but, for an individual family, the cost of replacing the entire fees paid to a school is a great deal more than £1,000. It would be entirely consistent with the Government's professed aims to say that, for siblings, a payment equivalent to the local authority's cost per head would carry on being paid. In those circumstances, even if the family were not able to come up with the money, the school might find it from 

general resources or a local charity or sponsor might be found, or, within the wider family, there might be an uncle, aunt or grandparent who could afford to pay the extra £1,000 a year, but could not afford to pay £4,000 a year, which is the average cost of the typical fees. The fact that Ministers have not considered the Bill's effects, which will means so much to siblings, is a measure of the mean-spiritedness and haste with which the Bill has been drafted.
Another factor to consider is the Bill's double whammy on siblings. I do not think that any hon. Member has yet mentioned that the proportion of fees that parents must pay per child decreases as the number of children attending under the scheme increases. For one child, no parental contribution is required from families earning up to £10,000 a year. If the family income is £18,000 a year, however, according to figures printed, in February, in The Guardian—

Mr. Flynn: So the figures must be right.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Yes, they must be right.
The parental contribution from such families for one child was £1,524, whereas the contribution for each of two children was £1,143, or a total of £2,286. The cost will rise under changes to the scheme. If one of those children is forced to leave his or her first preparatory school and is not allowed to continue independent school education, the parents will pay nearly as much—£1,524—to educate only one child. Almost the same exaction will be made from that family's budget, for the benefit of educating only one child and of dividing the family unit. The imposition of that double whammy on families that have two or more children but not much money is a good measure of the Bill's mean-spirited nature.
The Government should now halt further consideration of the Bill and allow matters to rest. They should not force a Division on the amendments to clause 2, but they should return with sensible proposals on how they will mitigate the real problems caused by the Bill for families with children who would like to attend the same school.

Mr. Tim Loughton: Mr. Lord, you will forgive me—as a fresh-faced, wet-behind-the-ears new boy—if I take up the point that was made earlier in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and say that I had had the impression, as I did when I spoke in the Second Reading debate, that this is a debating Chamber. Today, however, all the questions have been asked and all the points and arguments have been made by Conservative Members. It has been rather like trying to play frisbee with the Woodentops, because we have gotten nothing back. We have received no answers to our questions and there has been no consideration of the new points that we have raised.
It was real cheek for the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) to ask why there are not more Conservative Members in the Chamber. Even with my


non-private school education, I can tell that there are rather more Conservative Members here than Labour Members.

Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Loughton: No, I will not; let me get on. I have been waiting all evening to speak.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I thought that the hon. Gentleman wanted more debate.

Mr. Loughton: At last, we may have some debate. If a few more of the colleagues of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) had put down their crème de menthe frappés and pork scratchings in the bar and bothered to come into the Chamber, perhaps we might have had a proper debate, rather than relying all evening on Conservative Members to provide one.

Mr. Flynn: When the hon. Gentleman's experience of this place stretches beyond four weeks, he might realise that the important events are the votes, rather than the debates—regrettable though that may be. The last vote was decided by 300 votes to 39. It is an utter disgrace that newly elected Tory Members play truant on such a vital Bill. It is hypocritical of the hon. Gentleman to say that they are sincere in their views when three quarters of his party are at home in bed.

Mr. Loughton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that friendly advice. It confirms my point that 20 members of his party attend the debate, with the other 280-odd being Lobby fodder, when they put down their creme de menthe frappés and pork scratchings.

Mr. Lansley: Labour Members have not come here to participate in the debate. I, too, am a new Member. I thought that the purpose of our coming here this evening was to debate the Bill, to determine whether it had merit and, if possible, to improve it. That is exactly what we are trying to do.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the Committee that the subject of the amendment is siblings. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) would address that.

Mr. Loughton: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Lord. Perhaps, at this late hour, a certain fascination with crème de menthe frappés and pork scratchings may be forgiven.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. How did the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) manage to find crème de menthe frappés and pork scratchings in four weeks? I have been here 14 years and I still cannot find them.

Mr. Loughton: I sought advice from the Minister without Portfolio. I gather that the formal reply will be appearing before long in e-mail from Excalibur.
I want to get on with the speech I am trying to make and to deal with the subject of siblings. Hon. Members should grow up and face the fact that the Bill has nothing 

to do with class sizes; it has nothing to do with providing better conditions for kids in maintained schools—but it has everything to do with the Government's insidious and spiteful agenda for private schools. It is the thin edge of the wedge.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks specifically to the question of siblings, or he will be out of order.

Mr. Loughton: I am sorry, Mr. Lord.
On the specific subject of siblings, I want to take up a couple of points ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). I, too, served for many years on a local education authority appeals panel. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the single largest subject for objections was siblings not being able to attend the same schools—usually because the good schools were full. They had waiting lists, so even with such an important criterion as siblings, the schools could not help. That was why it was so necessary that the extra funds available from other parts of the education budget should be concentrated on the good schools. That is what the Conservative Government tried to do.
The debate has been filled with incongruities. There have been attacks on the private schools offering assisted places—from the Liberal Democrats, on the basis that their results were not very good. The argument was that their results did not match up to those of LEA schools. If that were the case, parents would not be so stupid as to want assisted places for their children in those schools and the scheme would have withered on the vine and been abandoned.
No mention has been made of the fact that one of the fastest growth areas in assisted places is among ethnic minorities, where siblings are an important consideration. Brothers and sisters from ethnic minorities may be attracted to a special education that they could achieve on assisted places but could not achieve in certain inner city schools, where they are not able to fit in and fulfil their potential.
The Government have made very little mention of anything during the debate, but particularly we have heard very little about the children. The debate seems to have been focused on the parents, as if they were social lepers trying a scam on the education system to get extra places for their selfish—

Mr. Clappison: Given the structure of the Bill, there may be circumstances in which one sibling in a primary school that is linked to a secondary school attended by another sibling will be forced to leave their school while the other child proceeds in the secondary school through to 18. Siblings may be forced to move to separate schools in the middle of their school career.

Mr. Loughton: That is an exceedingly valid point. My wife and her sister attended the same fee-paying school. Their parents worked overseas for the European Space Agency for many years. It was particularly important for those two young girls to be together in the same school. If girls in that situation were relying on the assisted places scheme now, it would be a traumatic experience at an impressionable time in their education.
Have the Government shown any concern about that? Have we heard a mention of the implications for brothers and sisters?

Mr. Swayne: When I went to school as Swayne minimus, I received a great deal of attention and assistance from my elder brothers. That would not have been possible if we had been on assisted places in the environment that will be achieved by the Bill. I would have been unable to attend that school and would have had to go to another. The environment for a new pupil in any school is terrifying and unfamiliar. It is a great assistance to have the help and succour of one's elder brothers—I say elder brothers for it was a single-sex institution. The fact is, however—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats when I am on my feet. The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear me say earlier that interventions should be brief and to the point.

Mr. Loughton: I am grateful for the important point that my hon. Friend was attempting to make. I hope that he will elaborate on it in his speech rather than pinching part of mine.
Perhaps we could put the debate and this flimsy, pathetic little Bill in the context of the Government's broader plans for education, which will affect many people. Not only are they endeavouring to deny pupils on assisted places and their siblings that choice; soon, an attack on grammar schools will also be on the agenda.
We know what the Government have said about grammar schools. They are not concerned about the few of the grammar schools; they are much more concerned with the many. The implication of that is that grammar schools must surely be under threat as well. Children who are currently on the assisted places scheme, and their siblings, will be forced off the scheme because their parents cannot afford to pay the full private school fees. As my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) said, 40 per cent. of children on the scheme receive the maximum help because their parents' income is well under the £10,000 ceiling.
The Government have made no mention of the sliding scale for the payment of fees. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford also made an important point about the discounts available for siblings, but such matters have not come up in the Ministers' flimsy arguments.
Not only will pupils currently on the assisted places scheme, and their siblings, be denied access to grammar schools as a possible alternative, but the Labour Government are going to attack the principle of grant-maintained schools. A further choice will therefore be denied to parents as Labour local education authorities install their placemen to undermine the principle of grant-maintained schools. The Government's principle is that nanny knows best—if it is not provided by the local education authority, it is not worth the paper it is written on.
What about the private schools that I began by mentioning? The Bill is the start of the slippery slope, because the Government will attack private education 

with VAT and then attack the charitable status of private schools. That is Labour's real agenda. I remind hon. Members to put that in the context of the range of choice currently available to children in this country.
Another issue, which I shall probably be pulled up short for mentioning, is that of nursery vouchers. The Government's approach to them is the most crass example of a complete stifling of choice for children at an early age.
The Government have used flawed figures and costs for sixth forms, among other things. They have not mentioned the fact that, in most cases, the assisted places scheme pays the boarding fees, not the full fees for pupils and their siblings.
A school in my constituency had hoped to be one of the next wave of go-ahead, exciting schools participating in the assisted places scheme. Lancing college, the major public school, works very closely with and gives a lot back to the community, and draws most of its pupils from that community. That school will now be denied the opportunity to broaden its appeal even further to the community that it serves and with which it has a very good relationship.
Is it not the case that the Bill—and this farce of a debate—is the result of an ill-thought-out and hasty vendetta by Labour against what it has misjudged as an issue of privilege? For the past 18 years, the Labour party has been straining at the leash to wage its misguided vendetta against private schools. The Bill amounts to the return of the nanny state and the stifling of choice for parents and their children. We broadened and extended that choice, but it is about to be stamped on with indecent haste.

Mr. Clappison: As the Committee will have gathered, the amendment is of particular interest to many of my constituents. They and I realised that, when Labour set out in its manifesto its proposals to phase out the assisted places scheme, the problem of the sibling connection would arise. Of course, my constituents' fears were confirmed when the issue was included in the Queen's Speech and the Bill was then introduced as a priority.
I mentioned the sibling connection during the education debate on the Queen's Speech because I knew that many of my constituents would want me to do so. When I listened to that debate, I took heart from the words of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. I thought that I was being realistic in accepting that the Labour party had a mandate for its policy—

Mr. Radice: The hon. Member is the first Conservative to have said that.

Mr. Clappison: As the hon. Gentleman says, I am the first to have said that, and we have many questions to ask about the policy. I do not know whether he was present when I was making my earlier points in connection with the savings to be made from the abolition of the assisted places scheme and whether or not they would be sufficient to pay for the Labour party's aspirations. That was the basis on which the pledge was made. I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is an astute and experienced Member, will have been less than convinced by the explanation about the finances given by the Minister.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Surely my hon. Friend—like so many of my constituents—when reading a Bill that calls itself


the Education (Schools) Bill and knowing that the Labour party's pledge is to reduce class sizes, would expect us at this late hour to be talking about increasing resources in order to do that. We would be expected to be talking about that subject as well as about siblings. Is there a single word in the Bill related to reducing class sizes? It is all about ensuring that siblings stay in the class.

Mr. Clappison: Another important point has arisen: whether or not the savings will be transferred to schools through local authorities.
I want to be nice to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment because I want her to listen carefully to this debate. To her credit, she has listened patiently, and I hope that I shall be able to change her mind. I am going to remind her of the words of the Secretary of State when he was asked about the sibling connection and existing places in the debate on the Queen's Speech. The right hon. Gentleman said:
The hallmark of this Government will be to put children before dogma. It will be to ensure that the interests of our children come first on every occasion."—[Official Report, 15 May 1997; Vol. 294. c.183.]
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear some support from Labour Members and I hope that the Minister will listen to it as well. I hope that the Government will be able to consider the interests of individual children and see whether it is necessary to do away with the sibling connection for pupils and whether the matter can be dealt with in a compassionate and flexible way that reflects the concerns that we have heard in so many contributions this evening.
I know the argument that is going through the Minister's mind. She has half canvassed the argument already, and it has also been echoed from the Liberal Benches. The argument advanced was that because there is a selection process for schools with assisted places, that invalidates the proposition that there has to be a sibling connection—it cannot be guaranteed that a sibling connection can be used if the sibling does not meet the necessary academic standard. I accept that that is a fair point and that it will take the Minister some way, but it will not take her far enough.
It may be the case—I believe that it is—that many siblings are sufficiently bright to have a highly academic education. Therefore, on the grounds that there is at least some prospect of a sibling connection being used, I hope that the Minister will think carefully about how she can preserve that connection.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who has long experience in, and is an authority on, education, posed what I call the Liberal question. I do not know his views on selection, but I suspect that, being a Liberal, he will probably oppose it. He will know from his experience that, if a child who is not academic goes to an academic school, it does him no favours because he has to struggle all the way through his school career, is unable to keep up with the other pupils and has a difficult time. The situation would be different if the child were bright.
I shall put it in practical terms—this is an issue that we need to consider in that way. The hon. Gentleman should think of the issue in terms of Bradford grammar school, which has a number of assisted places and of which people in his part of the world are every bit as proud as 

people in my part of the world are proud of Haberdashers' Aske's. They are both highly academic schools, of great national prestige and kudos that achieve a great deal for their pupils.
The hon. Gentleman will know that it would not do a non-academic child any good to go to a school such as Bradford grammar; but if two brothers, say, are equally bright, that is an altogether different matter. It would be cruel not to allow the two children to go to the same school. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will, I am sure, take the point, based on experience of his part of the world.
Thus the Minister's argument that because of selection there is no guarantee that siblings can attend the same school does not go far enough to answer our arguments. We believe that there are many siblings in bright families who can go to the same schools.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) mentioned Haberdashers' Aske's, and quoted letters from parents whose children attend the school. I conducted a little research and discovered that there are 230 children on assisted places at the school, out of a total of 1,300 pupils. I understand that that includes 14 pairs of brothers, as well as one family with three brothers at the school. There are also other children on assisted places at other schools in my constituency.
11.30 pm
It would be well worth conducting some research to find out how many children may be affected by the loss of assisted places for siblings. I agree with all my hon. Friends' arguments as to why it is desirable for siblings to attend the same school whenever that is possible. There are social reasons, reasons of family convenience, reasons of mutual support. Children may be affected by these decisions for the rest of their lives.
I invite the Minister to consider the matter in personal terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham did the Committee a service by doing just that: she put it in terms of the Benjamin Brady question. These days we seem to attach names to many of these questions: the Gary McAllister question, the Paul Gascoigne question and so on.
Again I urge the Minister to consider the personal consequences for children who may be affected. The thought that a child did not have the same opportunity as its brother or sister even though it was equally bright might affect that child for the rest of its life. This is not to denigrate the other schools that such children might be forced to attend. They may be performing well on any objective test, but, as the Minister knows, the schools that we are talking about are highly academic. Many of them are the old direct grant schools—Bradford grammar, Manchester grammar, Leeds grammar; others are old foundations such as Haberdashers' Aske's in my constituency. For a long time those schools have been centres of national excellence and renown, highly competitive and achieving very good results.
I know that some families with one son at Haberdashers' Aske's will want to place younger brothers there too. Those younger brothers may confidently be expected to pass the entrance exam. These people are waiting to hear what the Government have to say this evening. The same applies to the parents of girls in the sister school and in other schools in my constituency.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), I invite the Minister to be flexible and to act compassionately. If she is prepared to consider the amendment or to accept it, it will not bring the Bill crashing down; it will not ruin the Government's policy. Relatively few people are involved, but they are extremely interested in the amendment.
I invite the Minister to think carefully and to be flexible. We do not know how many children will be affected. The Government might usefully carry out some research to ascertain whether there is a way of accommodating those families.
I understand that the Government want the Bill to be passed as soon as possible so that they can start phasing out assisted places, saving the money from the scheme and putting it towards reducing class sizes, but we have heard tonight that they are unsure about the financial picture. There may be a financial way of doing what the Government want to do and accommodating those families, so I ask the Minister to give the matter careful thought.
It would only take a little while for the Minister to think about the matter. I hope that the Government will not decide to steamroller the Bill through without considering amendments or listening to debates. I hope that in some cases they will be prepared to consider amendments, and I hope that the Minister can do so this time.
The Minister will remember many times, when she was in opposition, when we debated education Bills and other legislation, when she argued strongly with Ministers on behalf of constituents, and Ministers were prepared to listen to debates and take away—

Mr. Terry Lewis: Name one.

Mr. Clappison: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman speaks to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), the Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment; we listened to the amendments that he tabled to the Housing Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for—

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Cotswold.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was there on that occasion. We said that we would think about the amendments. We accepted some amendments outright and were criticized—to be fair, not by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich but by some of his colleagues—for introducing legislation that was ill thought out and in a muddle and which needed to be amended.
If the Minister is prepared to take the matter away, think about it and speak to the Secretary of State about it, I promise that we shall not make any such suggestions or criticisms. I will be the first to praise the Government for listening to the arguments and for being prepared to be flexible and to accommodate individual cases.
I invite the Minister to consider the framework that already exists in the Bill, especially the transitional arrangements. Clause 3 describes the transitional arrangements. If the Government are unhappy with the

amendment, they may be able to find a way of incorporating the sibling connection in the transitional arrangements in that clause.
I ask the hon. Lady to be flexible, because her conduct will say a great deal about the Government's approach. The Secretary of State used fine words about putting children before dogma and the interests of the child being paramount, but we need more than words: we want a practical, positive response. We want deeds to match those words. This would be a good place to start because of the individual cases involved—the possible suffering if no sibling connection is introduced. I urge the hon. Lady to take the matter away and find out whether there is a way to do justice to it.
Many Labour Back Benchers who have been silent tonight—I make no criticism of them—have constituents whose children have assisted places in such schools, with sibling connections, and those families will be very interested in this matter, like the constituents of Opposition Members, who have spoken with great force. I invite the hon. Lady to live up to the fine words and to take the matter away and think about it.
The Government will set a bad precedent if they are not prepared to consider such cases. A message will be sent to the country that the Government will steamroller legislation through Parliament in a rush, without considering how it may be improved, conducting research or devising ways to accommodate individual cases. The Minister would do the Government and herself a great favour if she were prepared to show flexibility and come some way to meet the concerns that we have expressed about the sibling connection.

Mr. Damian Green: Many arguments of principle have been advanced by my hon. Friends in the absence of any arguments from Labour Members. The few Labour Members who have agreed to attend this important debate have decided not to reinforce the general arguments advanced by the Government.
I wish to help the Minister by producing some specific examples that relate to siblings. If taken into account, they would greatly improve the Bill. My examples are based on experience in my constituency, and a school that is especially concerned with the effects of the Bill. I think that they will interest Labour Members because they concern an all girls school. We have heard this week that the Government have new proposals to improve, allegedly, the lot of women. I hope, therefore, that the Minister and her colleagues will be particularly concerned with girls' education and how to improve it.
The Ashford school for girls is an excellent independent school. For many years, it has dealt with the education of girls from many parts of Kent. It is extremely pleased to participate in the assisted places scheme precisely because it helps to preserve a social mix and to bring the benefits of the excellent education that it provides to those who could not otherwise afford it.
The school is slightly unusual in that it takes girls from the age of three right through to the age of 18. It will be especially badly hit by the Bill. The sisters of girls who are already there will be particularly badly hit by clause 2 if the amendment is not accepted.
We are talking not about siblings who might go to the school, but about girls who are already at the school who will not be allowed to continue beyond the age of 11.


There is no dividing line now at that age because educations runs from age three to 18. The consequences for the school will be particularly disastrous because girls' sisters who already attend the school will not be allowed to continue under the APS after the age of 11. At an especially vulnerable age—an important age for the continuation of their education—they will be forcibly moved to other schools.
I invite the Minister and Labour Back Benchers to consider the effect that such a move would have on the girls in question. It would be psychologically scarring, it would damage their education, and many hundreds of girls would be affected over the years in a way that is not intended by those who support the Bill.
I accept the Government's good faith in introducing what I consider to be a misguided Bill, but I ask them to consider the amendment on its merits. Labour Members should not regard it—many of them seem to do so, I regret—as a piece of dogma that needs to be driven through the House of Commons with no arguments put behind it from the point of view of preserving ideological purity. Instead, they should consider the effects of the Bill on the education of individual girls.
The Bill will have an effect on siblings and it will introduce a degree of retrospection, which is bad in any legislation. In the full knowledge that, if a Labour Government were elected, they would introduce a Bill such as this, Ashford school obtained the Department's agreement that it could take girls on assisted places with the expectation that, having entered the school at the age of three, four, five, six or more, they would be able to go right through to the age of 18.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I wonder whether the Government and my hon. Friend have considered the possible effect on that school, and others, of their suddenly finding themselves non-viable and having to close as a result of the loss of siblings or the main assisted places. What would be the effect if all the children currently paying fees and not being assisted by the scheme were to go into local schools? Would that reduce class sizes, as the Government are pledged to do, or increase them?

Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am happy to reassure him and the House that such an eventuality would not befall Ashford school, because it is such an excellent school that many hundreds of girls would still apply to attend.
My hon. Friend makes a good point, for two reasons. First, if pupils are withdrawn from schools, that may have a serious effect on the schools and cause them to close, thus damaging education in certain areas. Secondly, that would not only damage the independent schools in a particular area; it would have a serious and damaging effect on the state schools in the area. Pupils would be displaced and schools would have to take on a rush of new pupils. I beg the Minister to consider the fact that that would involve an increase in class sizes in the state schools. If the abolition of the APS caused the closure of independent schools, the effect would be to displace pupils into the state system—exactly the opposite effect to that which is intended. I urge the Government to consider that important point.

Mr. Lansley: I am interested in my hon. Friend's observations from his constituency. Given that, in the

circumstances that he described, younger siblings would be displaced into state schools, would parents be able to choose another single-sex school for their children? Is such a school readily available in my hon. Friend's constituency? Once the pupils were displaced out of the independent sector, would places be available, or would such schools be over-subscribed?

Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes two excellent points. In my constituency there would not be schools of a similar type. It is extremely important that as much choice as possible is available to parents, particularly to parents of girls. It has often been observed that all boys should go to mixed schools, but all girls should go to single-sex schools if their education is to be maximised. I agree with that saying.
The choice available to parents and pupils would be lessened, as my hon. Friend suggested. There would be a serious effect on class sizes and no doubt some schools would become overcrowded. That would negate what the Government intend as the main purpose of this spiteful little measure. The supposed benefit is that class sizes will be reduced, but one possible effect would be an increase in class sizes. That cannot be the Government's intention.
It is not only convenient for parents to send their children to the same school; it is environmentally beneficial, because it reduces the number of car journeys at peak hours at each end of the school day. Forcing siblings to go to different schools will increase the amount of peak-hour traffic on our roads. Interruption.] On a day when the Deputy Prime Minister has allegedly been making great strides towards reducing traffic, it is ironic that the Government are proposing a measure that will increase congestion. [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.

Mr. Green: Society as a whole benefits from siblings going to the same school, because the number of car journeys at peak hours is reduced. If Labour Members do not take that point seriously, they should be careful to do so only from a sedentary position: otherwise, they will appear on Excalibur as being off message, and we know what effect that would have.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend's point has an environmental complexion. Labour Members may care to note that major campaigns have been launched by the Department of the Environment from time to time to persuade parents not to use their cars for short journeys to take their children to school, because that is when car emissions are most environmentally damaging. That is an important point.

Mr. Green: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that Ministers who are enjoying their new cars are using them in the most environmentally friendly fashion.

Mr. Lansley: Many parents whose children go to schools such as my hon. Friend has described are working mothers or lone parents who have to accept responsibility for delivering children to, and collecting children from, school. Labour Members may not want to hear this argument. In the past, their contention has been that they


wish to help lone parents into work, but this kind of measure could place additional burdens on parents who have to deliver children to different schools in different areas and prevent them from undertaking the work of their choice.

Mr. Green: That is an important point. We have heard much oratory from Labour Members about single mothers and how important it is that they should be allowed to work. One of the best ways to help single mothers, or working mothers of any kind, to get to work is to ensure that the journeys at each end of the school day are as simple and easy as possible, and the best way to do that is to ensure that in as many cases as possible all siblings go to the same school.
The Bill makes it more difficult for siblings to attend the same school, it will increase the journey time to schools and it will make it difficult for mothers to seek work, so making it more difficult to get them back into the labour force—an aim which Labour Members allegedly support.

Mr. Loughton: There is yet another important point in which the Government have no interest. Does my hon. Friend appreciate that up to a half of all journeys in Britain are shorter than five miles? On the A27 through my constituency, the largest cause of traffic congestion is parents taking their children to school. That problem will be compounded further if children have to be taken to different schools as siblings are split up by the sheer vindictiveness of this measure.

Mr. Green: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point.
When I was a state school governor, one of the basic tenets to which the school held in an attempt to improve the education of its children, like almost every school in Britain, was that priority should be given to siblings. Education is improved for individual children if sisters and brothers are allowed to go to the same school.
If that is good enough in the state sector, it should be good enough in the independent sector. The Government should be concerned with the education in all schools in Britain. They claim to be the Government for all, not just the few, so they should not impose discriminatory measures such as the Bill on children from relatively disadvantaged homes who benefit from the scheme. The Government will discriminate against those children by passing the Bill.
I appeal to the Minister and the Government to show some flexibility. Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends have made the point that the amendments would not wreck the central tenets of the Bill; they would simply improve it at the margin. That margin is extremely important, and I hope that the Government will take the argument seriously.
Conservative Members have tried to improve the Bill. Labour Members have sat here—not silently, but all their remarks have been made from a sedentary position—and contributed nothing to the debate. Many of them have returned to the Chamber from wherever they have been, but they have not advanced one argument all evening about how the central thrust of the Bill will improve

education or, in particular, why the amendments we have been discussing for the past few hours are no good. Labour Members have not advanced one argument in favour of the Bill.
We have tried to improve the Bill for the Government by proposing the amendments. I appeal to the Minister to show some flexibility, to take the Bill away, to think again, to accept some of our amendments and to refuse to put through a measure that will damage the education of many thousands of children in my constituency and across the country.

Ms Estelle Morris: This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak in the Chamber, Mr. Martin, since your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I wish to congratulate you and to note that we always seem to start a parliamentary Session by serving together on an education Bill in our respective roles. Long may that continue.
I listened to the comments made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) when she moved the amendment. We heard crocodile tears from the hon. Lady, and I shall explain why later in my speech. If the issue of siblings being allowed to continue to take up assisted places is such a large issue—the most burning issue that we have discussed tonight—and if it provokes such tales of woe, as the hon. Lady suggested, I wonder why she and her colleagues marched into the Lobby some two hours ago to vote against the continuation of the debate. I am grateful that my hon. Friends allowed the debate to continue, so that we have had the opportunity to give a fair hearing to the issue.

Mrs. Gillan: I shall tell the Minister why we marched into the Lobby two hours ago against the 10 o'clock motion. We did so because it has been obvious from the behaviour of Labour Members during the debate that they are not interested in the details of the Bill. They are not interested in considering individual problems and they have arrogantly used their majority to railroad the Bill through the House. I wanted a more temperate debate on the Bill on another occasion, but the Government wanted to pass the Bill in a couple of hours. We went through the Lobby because we believe that the assisted places scheme is worth saving—the Government do not.

Ms Morris: As I said, we have seen many crocodile tears from Opposition Members. No one in the Committee—not Labour Members nor Conservative Members—has a monopoly of concern for children's welfare and well-being. The hon. Lady claimed that for herself and her hon. Friends, but that can never be the case. The Tories were the party that left the education system with £3 billion of school repairs outstanding, with half our 11-year-olds failing to reach the necessary levels of literacy and numeracy and with many of our four, five and six-year-olds in classes of more than 30. How dare the hon. Lady claim that she is concerned about children's education and welfare—[Interruption]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We cannot have such behaviour in the Committee.

Mr. Luff: The Minister is out of order.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know better.

Ms Morris: I am concerned about Benjamin Brayley and the Mileses and Matthews—the individual cases that


the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham mentioned and to which I listened carefully. Is that the worst thing that is likely to happen to those children? The hon. Lady thinks that it is such a terrible thing that they will be educated in the maintained sector. I have more faith in the state education system than Opposition Members.

12 midnight

Mr. Clappison: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Morris: No, I am going to make some progress.
The hon. Lady talked about a young man called Philip who was on an assisted places scheme and was about to get straight As in his GCSE examinations this year. I wish him well; I hope that he gets those straight As. But he will join thousands of others Philips and Philippas who will also get straight As and will take their place with him, doing A-levels and studying at the finest universities in the country. They will have received their education and their life chances from the state education system that the hon. Lady seems to consider such a terrible thing.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Ms Morris: I might give way later, if I am allowed to make some progress now.
Notwithstanding all the individual cases of which we have heard, all the names that have been bandied about by Opposition Members and all the letters from parents that have been read out, not once has any Opposition Member given the name of a child who is currently being educated in a class of more than 40 and is five years old. We have not been read a single letter from a parent who just wants the sort of teacher-pupil ratio that is enjoyed by many in the independent sector.

Mrs. Gillan: rose—

Ms Morris: I wish that the hon. Lady—who now wants to intervene—would show as much concern for the 7,000 children in the area that is covered by her constituency who are currently in classes of more than 30 and are five, six and seven years old.
Before I give way to the hon. Lady, may I give the Committee one more statistic? In the local authority area covered by the hon. Lady's constituency, 35.8 per cent. of children are in classes of more than 30 in their infant years. Moreover, in the hon. Lady's constituency there is not one assisted place—but she can come to the Committee and make a speech with crocodile tears, presumably on behalf of her constituency, which has not one assisted place but in which more than a third of children are in classes of more than 30 at the ages of five, six and seven.

Mrs. Gillan: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I appeal to hon. Members to be quiet when another hon. Member is addressing the Committee.

Mrs. Gillan: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way.
First, my constituency has a first-class education committee. It does not matter what class sizes are in my constituency; the results that are being achieved for children are first-class. I should like the hon. Lady to repeat what she has said to Mrs. Brayley, Mrs. Nourse and Mrs. James, because she has made it clear tonight that she does not care what happens to those children. It is not true that several letters were read out; the hon. Lady was not even listening. One letter was read out, from Mrs. Nourse. I believe that the hon. Lady has shown that she does not care what children and parents think about the effect of the abolition of the scheme. It is disgusting.

Ms Morris: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind both the Minister and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) that the subject of the debate is an amendment about siblings. [Interruption.] Hon. Members must let me tell the Minister. Let me say to the Minister that hon. Members must discuss the amendment, which is about siblings.

Ms Morris: As you will appreciate, Mr. Martin, the debate has been very wide-ranging, and I did not want to be accused of not answering the questions that were raised.
I agree with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). Like him, I congratulate the local authorities and many schools that put siblings fairly high on their list when they allocate places. However, the system of selection on which the assisted places scheme is built does not give siblings a high priority when it is decided who should receive places where demand exceeds supply.
The Conservative party said in its manifesto—the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said that we would make this point, and I am making it—that it favoured selection and giving schools the right to select on aptitude or academic ability. It is that system and those criteria more than any other that have split brother from sister, brother from brother and sister from sister. Conservative Members cannot claim that that is the best way to allocate places at secondary school, and then claim that siblings should be given precedence.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Clappison: rose

Ms Morris: I shall not give way at the moment.
The Conservative party's claims led me to make the remark about crocodile tears. The assisted places scheme was introduced not by this Government, but by the previous Government. Did they give priority to siblings? Does the scheme require schools to give siblings precedence over academic ability? No, it does not.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman has had a fair share of the Committee's time. I want to take my fair share of the time, to answer the queries that have been raised.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is not giving way.

Ms Morris: You read my mind correctly, Mr. Martin.
The shadow Minister is a great devotee of the assisted places scheme. What efforts did she make to ensure that, when places on the scheme were allocated, siblings were given precedence over children of higher academic ability? Can she tell the Committee what actions she took to ensure that siblings were at the top of the list of criteria in the allocation of places?

Mrs. Gillan: When I was responsible for the assisted places scheme, I ensured that the scheme expanded. The basis of tonight's argument is that by the removal of the scheme, the hon. Lady is denying siblings the opportunity to go to the assisted places schools that their older brothers and sisters attend. When I was the Minister responsible, they had that opportunity. She is removing that opportunity from those children immediately, and she could not care less.

Ms Morris: As I thought, the hon. Lady took no action to ensure that siblings were put at the top of the list. That is what I mean by crocodile tears.
I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire that siblings should be given a high priority. I believe in a system that allows siblings to be put at the top of the list. Conservative Members advocate a system of selection and develop an assisted places scheme that does nothing to favour siblings at the expense of academic attainment, and then they want us to change the criteria.

Mr. Luff: rose—

Ms Morris: If Conservative Members cared so much about siblings having the opportunity to join their brothers or sisters at assisted places schools, when they were in power they should have ensured that that was on the list of criteria.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Morris: No, I have almost finished. I want to wind up the debate.
No argument has been put either by the shadow Minister or by Conservative Members—

Mr. Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. As Ministers are new to their jobs, could you guide the Committee? There is no limitation on the time that the Minister has to respond to the debate. Therefore, in giving way, she is not reducing the time available to her to respond to what is being said.

The First Deputy Chairman: It is entirely up to the hon. Lady as to whether to give way.

Mr. Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Martin.

The First Deputy Chairman: I hope that it is a point of order.

Mr. Luff: I seek your guidance. The hon. Lady is discussing my contribution to the debate, but she will not give way to me.

The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Ms Morris: As I was saying before I was interrupted by points of order, no case has been made for extending

the assisted places scheme. We have made it clear both in our manifesto commitment and in speeches that we have no intention of extending the scheme beyond the intake at the start of the next academic year. The amendments would allow an extension of the scheme and that was not one of the pledges on which we fought the election. We have every intention of fulfilling those pledges. Children who are currently in the scheme and those who are taking up places in September at the start of the next academic year will not have their education disrupted.
The money saved will be used to ensure that the opportunities that under a Tory Government were offered only to the few will be offered to the many, and they include the thousands of infants in the constituency of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham who are currently in classes of more than 30. I have set out our priorities and we have covered the issue of the many and the few. Our determination to raise standards for all would not be furthered by giving resources to the few. We do not want to extend the assisted places scheme and I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

Ms Bridget Prentice: rose in her place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 246, Noes 32.

Division No. 19]
[12.10 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Dr Lynda


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Austin, John
Clelland, David


Banks, Tony
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coaker, Vernon


Battle, John
Cohen, Harry


Bayley, Hugh
Coleman, Iain


Beard, Nigel
(Hammersmith & Fulham)


Benton, Joe
Colman, Anthony (Putney)


Bermingham, Gerald
Connarty, Michael


Blackman, Mrs Liz
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cooper, Ms Yvette


Borrow, David
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Corston, Ms Jean


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cranston, Ross


Bradshaw, Ben
Crausby, David


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


(Newcastle E& Wallsend)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Darvill, Keith


Buck, Ms Karen
Davidson, Ian


Burden, Richard
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Burgon, Colin
Dawson, Hilton


Byers, Stephen
Dobbin, Jim


Caborn, Richard
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Drew, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Drown, Ms Julia


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eagle, Ms Maria (L 'pool Garston)


Cann, Jamie
Edwards, Huw


Caplin, Ivor
Efford, Clive


Casale, Roger
Ellman, Ms Louise


Caton, Martin
Ennis, Jeff


Cawsey, Ian
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fisher, Mark


Chisholm, Malcolm
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Clapham, Michael
Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna






Flint, Ms Caroline
Mactaggart, Fiona


Flynn, Paul
McWalter, Tony


Foster, Don (Bath)
McWilliam, John


Foster, Michael John (Worcester)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mallaber, Ms Judy


Gerrard, Neil
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Goggins, Paul
Meale, Alan


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Milbum, Alan


Grant, Bernie
Moffatt, Laura


Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Gunnell, John
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hain, Peter
Morley, Elliot


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mudie, George


Hanson, David
Mullin, Chris


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Healey, John
Olner, Bill


Heath, David (Somerton)
Opik, Lembit


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hepburn, Stephen
Perham, Ms Linda


Heppell, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hesford, Stephen
Pike, Peter L


Hill, Keith
Plaskitt, James


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Pollard, Kerry


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pond, Chris


Hope, Philip
Pope, Greg


Howells, Dr Kim
Pound, Stephen


Hoyle, Lindsay
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Primarolo, Dawn


Hurst, Alan
Prosser, Gwyn


Hutton, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


lllsley, Eric
Quinn, Lawrie


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Radice, Giles


Jamieson, David
Rapson, Syd


Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)
Raynsford, Nick


Johnson, Alan (Hull W)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Johnson, Ms Melanie
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Savidge, Malcolm


Keen, Alan (Feltham)
Sawford, Phil


Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Kemp, Fraser
Shaw, Jonathan


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Khabra, Piara S
Singh, Marsha


Kidney, David
Skinner, Dennis


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Kingham, Tessa
Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)


Laxton, Bob
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Lepper, David
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Levitt, Tom
Southworth, Ms Helen


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Stevenson, George


Linton, Martin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Lock, David
Stinchcombe, Paul


Love, Andy
Stoate, Dr Howard


McAvoy, Thomas
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McCabe, Stephen
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


McCafferty, Ms Chris
(Dewsbury)


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


McDonagh, Ms Siobhain
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Macdonald, Calum
Timms, Stephen


McDonnell, John
Tipping, Paddy


Mclsaac, Ms Shona
Todd, Mark


McNulty, Tony
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


MacShane, Denis
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)





Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Willis, Phil


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wlls, Michael


Vis, Dr Rudi
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Walley, Ms Joan
Wise, Audrey


Ward, Ms Claire
Wood, Mike


White, Brian
Woolas, Phil


Whitehead, Alan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Wright Tony (Gt Yarmouth)



(Swansea W)



Williams, Dr Alan W
Tellers for the Ayes:


(E Carmarthen)
Mr. Jim Dowd and Mr. Clive Betts.


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)





NOES


Amess, David
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bercow, John
Loughton, Tim


Brady, Graham
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Browning, Mrs Angela
May, Mrs Theresa


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Nicholls, Patrick


Cash, William
Ottaway, Richard


Clappison, James
Paice, James


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Paterson, Owen


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
St Aubyn, Nick


Fallon, Michael
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Forth, Eric
Swayne, Desmond


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Walter, Robert


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Wells, Bowen


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Green, Damian



Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Mr. Peter Luff and Mr. David Lidington.


Lansley, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mrs. Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Once again the Government have sought to use a closure motion to stifle the debate of Conservation Member. Can you tell me whether that is right, when they have turned out in such large Numbers after showing no—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is clearly making a speech, not a point of order. I shall put the Question.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 29, Noes 245.

Division No. 20]
[12.23 am


AYES


Amess, David
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Bercow, John
May, Mrs Theresa


Brady, Graham
Nicholls, Patrick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Ottaway, Richard


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Paice, James


Cash, William



Clappison, James
Paterson, Owen


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
St Aubyn, Nick


Fallon, Michael
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Forth, Eric
Swayne, Desmond


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Walter, Robert



Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Wells, Bowen


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Jack, Rt Hon Michael



Lansley, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mr. David Lidington and Mr. Peter Luff.


Loughton, Tim







NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Efford, Clive


Ainger, Nick
Ellman, Ms Louise


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ennis, Jeff


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Fisher, Mark


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Austin, John
Fitzsimons, Ms Loma


Banks, Tony
Hint, Ms Caroline


Barnes, Harry
Flynn, Paul


Battle, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bayley, Hugh
Foster, Michael John (Worcester)


Beard, Nigel
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Benton, Joe
Gerrard, Neil


Bermingham, Gerald
Gibson, Dr Ian


Blackman, Mrs Liz
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Blears, Ms Hazel
Goggins, Paul


Borrow, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Grant, Bemie


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)


Bradshaw, Ben
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gunnell, John


Brown, Rt Hon Nick
Hain, Peter


(Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Buck, Ms Karen
Hanson, David


Burden, Richard
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Burgon, Colin
Healey, John


Byers, Stephen
Heath, David (Somerton)


Caborn, Richard
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hepburn, Stephen


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Heppell, John


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Hesford, Stephen


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hill, Keith


Cann, Jamie
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Caplin, Ivor
Hoon, Geoffrey


Casale, Roger
Hope, Philip


Caton, Martin
Howells, Dr Kim


Cawsey, Ian

Hoyle, Lindsay


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Humble, Mrs Joan


Clapham, Michael
Hurst, Alan


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hutton, John


Clark, Dr Lynda
lllsley, Eric


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Jamieson, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W)


Clelland, David
Johnson, Ms Melanie


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Coaker, Vernon
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Coleman, Iain
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


(Hammersmith & Fulham)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Colman, Anthony (Putney)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Connarty, Michael
Keen, Alan (Feltham)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)


Cooper, Ms Yvette
Kemp, Fraser


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Corston, Ms Jean
Khabra, Piara S


Cranston, Ross
Kidney, David


Crausby, David
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Kingham, Tessa


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Darvill, Keith
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Davidson, Ian
Laxton, Bob


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Lepper, David


Dawson, Hilton
Levitt, Tom


Dobbin, Jim
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Drew, David
Linton, Martin


Drown, Ms Julia
Lock, David


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Love, Andy


Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)
McAvoy, Thomas


Edwards, Huw
McCabe, Stephen





McCafferty, Ms Chris
Savidge, Malcolm


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Sawford, Phil


McDonagh, Ms Siobhain
Sedgemore, Brian


Macdonald, Calum
Shaw, Jonathan


McDonnell, John
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mclsaac, Ms Shona
Singh, Marsha


Mackinlay, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Miss Geraldine


McWalter, Tony
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mallaber, Ms Judy
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Squire, Ms Rachel


Meale, Alan
Stevenson, George


Milbum, Alan
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moffatt, Laura
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann



Moriey, Elliot
(Dewsbury)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mudie, George
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mullin, Chris
Timms, Stephen



Tipping, Paddy


Olner, Bill
Todd, Mark


Opik, Lembit
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Perham, Ms Linda
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pickthall, Colin
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pike, Peter L
Vis, Dr Rudi


Plaskitt, James
Walley, Ms Joan


Pollard, Kerry
Ward, Ms Claire


Pond, Chris
White, Brian


Pope, Greg
Whitehead, Alan


Pound, Stephen
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
(Swansea W)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Williams, Dr Alan W


Primarolo, Dawn
(E Carmarthen)


Prosser, Gwyn
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Willis, Phil


Quinn, Lawrie
Wills, Michael


Radice, Giles
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Rapson, Syd
Wise, Audrey


Raynsford, Nick
Wood, Mike


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Woolas, Phil


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Rooker, Jeff
Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)



Rooney, Terry



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. Jim Dowd.


Ryan, Ms Joan

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. There is on today's Order Paper a Government motion regarding Monday's debate on the European Union. The take-note motion contains a reference to the stability pact—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. The motion is not on today's Order Paper.

Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (2).

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 27, in page 2, line 1, after `(2)', insert 'Subject to subsection (2A),'.

No. 3, in page 2, line 5, after 'or,' insert—
`(6) in the case of a pupil with an assisted place at a school providing education for children up to the age of 13 but not beyond, at the end of the school year in which he attains the age of 13, or `.

No. 34, in page 2, line 5, after 'or', insert—
(a) at the end of the school year in which he completes his education within the school where he was provided with an assisted place; or'.

No. 28, in page 2, line 10, at end insert—
'(2A) Unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the pupil in question will receive secondary education which is comparable to the primary education which he has received in regard to—

(a) its religious content;
(b) the curriculum provided;
(c) opportunities for sport;
(d) size of classes; and
(e) single-sex provision,

Mr. Forth: We come to a new aspect of the Bill. I can best sum it up in the words "trust" and "education". I say "trust" because, as the Committee is aware, that word was a key element in the election campaign and was much used by none other than the Prime Minister himself. He asked the electorate to trust him, his party and, presumably therefore, the Government. However, the question that we must ask is what trust parents who have committed their children to an education under the assisted places scheme can have in the Government.
In developing the argument, I want first to read a brief extract from a letter from the chairman of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools, no less, to the Secretary of State, no less. It states:

I am writing to you as Chairman of the LAPS (Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools) to enquire whether there may have been an oversight in the plans for the phasing out of the Assisted Places Scheme. You have always made it quite clear that the Assisted Places would be removed and there has never been room for doubt about your intentions when elected. There was, however, room for doubt over the precise timings of the phasing out and, in particular, the arrangements as they applied to stand-alone preparatory schools. As you will know most preparatory schools take children up to the age of 13 and after that point most of our pupils transfer to secondary schools but some go to the maintained sector.
Here is the key point, The letter continues:
When the Labour Party's plans for Assisted Places were announced I wrote to Mr. Peter Kilfoyle in order to clarify the situation regarding the length of tenure of an Assisted Place for children in our schools. He wrote to me on 18th March with a letter that did not make clear the precise details that I was querying. I then heard again from him on 1st April and this letter clarified the situation completely—or so I thought. He states 'If a child has a place at a school which runs to 13 then that place will be honoured through to 13'.

Mr. Michael Fallon: As one of my right hon. Friend's predecessors who was in charge of the IAPS for two years, may I ask him whether the letter is not so important that a full text of it should be placed not only

in the Library of the House, but before every member of the Committee before we proceed with further debate on the subject?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a helpful and constructive suggestion. I wonder whether you, Mr. Martin, agree with my hon. Friend's point that the letter—and others that I shall submit to the Committee and to my hon. Friend—

Mr. Fallon: Mr. Martin, does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Is this a point of order?

Mr. Fallon: No. I am simply addressing my remarks, through you Mr. Martin, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
We cannot keep debating letters that have not been laid before the Committee. We have now referred twice to a letter which, I understand, is of key importance to the Committee—a letter written by a then Opposition spokesman that refers directly to the contractual relationships involved in the scheme. Surely it is right that, if the Committee is to proceed—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is far too long. I call Mr. Forth.

Mr. Forth: I have much sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying, and I think that he is trying to be helpful to the Committee. I shall, with your permission, Mr. Martin, read from this letter and one or two others, including a poignant letter from one of my constituents that I received only today. As my hon. Friend has perceptively pointed out, the letter is important. The letter that I quoted, although it was from the chairman of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools to the Secretary of State, makes a point which was mentioned on Second Reading and which is highly pertinent to our current proceedings.
The letter in question was from no less a figure than the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who, when he wrote the letter, was a senior member of the then shadow education team, and is now a member of Her Majesty's Government. He is not, however, a member of the Government education team. I suspect that one reason why he is not—I regret this, because he is a man for whom I have the most enormous respect and admiration—is that the undertaking he gave as an official Opposition spokesman on this important matter has now been completely reneged on by the Government.

Mr. Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Is it in order to adjourn the Committee at this stage, so that the important papers to which my right hon. Friend is referring can be made available to members of the Committee? We can then read them for ourselves and judge their importance.

The First Deputy Chairman: Absolutely not.

Mr. Forth: The point at issue is a commitment to young children undergoing their education, and to the continuity of that education.
The IAPS had perfectly good reason to think, on receiving a letter from the Labour education team in April of this year, that the commitment it contained would be honoured. That letter said:
If a child has a place at a school which runs to age 13, then that place will be honoured through to 13".
It was perfectly reasonable to suppose that that pledge would be honoured were the Labour party to win the election.
I regret to say that it seems that the pledge will not be honoured—

Mr. Clappison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any parent receiving such an assurance would feel that it was such a cast-iron guarantee that it would be reasonable to act in reliance on it, and to place a child in a school or allow a child to remain at a school?

Mr. Forth: Yes, indeed. The very next sentence of the letter from the chairman of the IAPS reads:
On that basis we, in common with a large number of preparatory schools, have offered places to seven and 11-year-olds"—  [Interruption.]

Mr. Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I apologise for troubling you with another point of order, but I am finding it increasingly difficult, owing to agitated conversations on the Treasury Bench and elsewhere in the Chamber, to follow what my right hon. Friend is saying.

The First Deputy Chairman: I appeal to hon. Members for calm and quiet. A right hon. Member is trying to address the Committee.

Mr. Forth: I apologise to the Committee and to you, Mr. Martin, if the quality of my oratory is not as yet, at this early stage of my remarks, sufficient to capture the attention of all hon. Members who are present. I am laying the ground for my argument by producing some relevant material which, of necessity, I have to read out. I might try to liven it up a bit, if the Committee would prefer that. I hope, however, that Members are listening attentively.

Mr. Lansley: Parents' reasonable expectations of what was to happen to their children, in respect of clauses 1 and 2, are clearly now not going to be fulfilled. What does my right hon. Friend believe the Government propose to do about that?

Mr. Forth: Tempted although I am to do so, it is not for me to answer on behalf of the Government. I am arguing that the Government are seriously damaging the education of several young children because an official Opposition spokesman led parents and schools to believe that one set of circumstances would apply if Labour won the general election and now, regrettably, a completely different set of circumstances apply.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Swayne: rose——

Mr. Forth: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).

Mr. Swayne: May I draw attention to the serious nature of the change? By the nature of the fact that they are

in receipt of assisted places, the families involved are of very limited income. They are making proportionately very large financial commitments for their children's education, which involve planning over several years and, all of a sudden, the rug from under which they made those assumptions has been pulled away.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend tempts me to advance to a new clause that we have not yet discussed, which covers that rather well. I will resist that temptation, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, because I want to concentrate—

Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend yield to another temptation first? Is he certain that he is getting this right? As I understand it, he is saying that an assurance was given by an Opposition spokesman that is unfair, not only to the parents and child concerned but to schools. Presumably, it follows from what he said that some schools must have admitted children in the expectation that they could stay to the age of 13. If my right hon. Friend has evidence to support that proposition, the matter is so disgraceful that it will be remarkable if Labour Members do not make speeches, asking Ministers to reconsider. Does my right hon. Friend really think that he has got that right? It would be disgraceful.

Mr. Forth: If my hon. Friend is suggesting that my remarks will provoke a cacophony of speeches from Labour Members, I am in two minds about that. My hon. Friend may be surprised to hear that a part of me would welcome that. I would welcome some sign of life from Labour Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We have had the disgraceful experience of considering this important Bill in proper detail, scrutinising it—[Interruption.] We have had several thoughtful and relevant contributions from Conservative Members. Labour Members appear to be capable of little more than baying, giggling, laughing and being inattentive to the Committee's proceedings; they have made no contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) suggested that, were the line of argument that I was pursuing to be as I have set it out, he would expect Labour Members to respond. I wish that they would, so that we could hear what they think about the circumstances. Before the general election, one of their senior spokesmen gave a solemn undertaking to parents and schools, on which those parents and schools acted in all reasonableness, only to find that when the Labour party had won the election, having asked people to trust it, the first thing that it did was to break that trust appallingly.

Mr. Ian Bruce: rose—

Mr. Fallon: rose—

Mr. Forth: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce).

Mr. Bruce: As he is an attentive attender in the House, my right hon. Friend knows that every time that we challenge the Government on why they are doing something, they tell us that they have a mandate. They say that they set out clearly what they would do if elected


and that they received an overwhelming vote, so they will implement the policy. Surely this is the policy for which they have the mandate—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is far too much noise in the Committee. [Interruption.] I am glad that hon. Members agree that there is far too much noise. The Minister and those who intervene must address their remarks to the amendments before us. [Interruption.] Order. Talk of mandates or otherwise is not the subject before us at the moment; the amendments are before us, and I must be firm at this late hour.

1 am

Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Martin.
We are discussing the age at which a child may be entitled to proper education within the assisted places scheme. The thrust of my argument so far, at this early stage, and the evidence that I am setting before the Committee are directed exactly to that point.
Having quoted a letter from the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools, which in turn quoted a letter from the hon. Member for Walton, the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, I move on to a letter from the Department of 4 June, a very recent letter. It was addressed to the chairman of the IAPS from a senior official. I shall not read the entire letter because you would not want me to delay the Committee, Mr. Martin.
The key element says:
essentially the Bill takes a different approach to that envisaged by Mr. Kilfoyle. The Bill's proposals have been framed deliberately by reference the pupil's age whereas Mr. Kilfoyle's letter implies the approach will take account of the age range of the school at which the pupil holds the place.
We have the remarkable phenomenon, unknown to me in my experience in the House or in government, that a senior official in the Department is, in terms, confirming that there is a complete difference between an undertaking given by a Labour party education spokesman before the general election and the approach that is now being taken by the Government in introducing the Bill. That is the essence of the breach of trust that we are now discussing.

Mr. Fallon: Is my right hon. Friend taking up not simply a breach of trust but a breach of contract? Does not the subsection go to the heart of contractual law? We are talking not of a manifesto pledge or how that is interpreted but a breach of contract. Is that not so?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point. At this stage in our proceedings, however, I do not believe that it is for me to judge whether he is correct. I believe that there is at least a question whether the difference to which I have been drawing attention involves not only a breach of trust, which I think that I have established beyond doubt, but a breach of contract. It may involve also, for all I know, breaches of the European convention on human rights. That will have to be taken into consideration.

Mr. Swayne: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the possibility that parents could have recourse to the European Court of Human Rights as a consequence of Labour's determination to bring rights home?

Mr. Forth: I think that my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Chamber must be quieter. That applies to right hon. and hon.
Members on both sides of the Committee. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was a Minister, and he is well aware of the rules of the House of Commons. He will be aware that the Committee must talk about the amendment. I am not looking for Members to read letters into the record. There must be a discussion of the amendment.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Martin, and I will endeavour to adhere strictly to it. My amendments seek to put right the terrible wrong that is done in the Bill as drafted.
A number of children who are being excellently educated under the assisted places scheme had every reasonable expectation of being educated to the age of 13 in a school where that was the age at which pupils normally transferred to secondary education. As a result of the provisions of the Bill, and especially of clause 2, that is no longer the case. The difference that I was highlighting to the Committee confirms that.
None other than the hon. Member for Walton confirmed in his letter of 1 April confirmed that that was an issue and that he should give a reasonable undertaking to those concerned, to ensure that there was no doubt about the matter.
In our amendments, we seek to honour that undertaking, even if the hon. Gentleman's own colleagues will not do so. It is a matter of great regret that the hon. Gentleman is not a Minister in the Department for Education and Employment, where he might have been expected to honour his own pledge. He has been moved sideways, and we now know why. It was presumably hoped that we would not notice, but we have noticed. The Committee has noticed, and it is to our great regret that the hon. Gentleman is not in a position to honour his pledge.
Our amendments are designed to ensure not only that the children can receive the education, but that the schools concerned can provide the education to the age of 13 that they would have expected when they made the appropriate arrangements.
The next point that I want to take up flows from a comment made earlier by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Wallsend —

Mr. Byers: Tyneside, North.

Mr. Forth: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman—Tyneside, North. I made a note of his words, listening carefully as I always do to what he said. He said—almost incredibly in the light of the debate that we have had—that parents would rejoice at the measures in the Bill.
I have a letter that I received this morning from one of my constituents, who telephoned me in a state of distress about the proposals for the assisted places scheme. In the light of what the Minister of State said, it is pertinent for the Committee to understand what a real person with real children at a real school said. "Rejoice" is not a word which my constituent has used. She wrote:
Our daughter, aged 10, gained her assisted place in February 1996 and took up her place at Croydon High School in September 1996. She is particularly bright, and she has just proved in the last two sets of exams that she has enormous ability, being in the top four of her year, justifying her place. Moreover, she understands fully that she has an assisted place and like her brother is committed to working hard. Both children are very happy in their schools.


In the next paragraph of her letter, my constituent gives the lie to the flippant remarks made by Labour Members about those in receipt of assisted places help. She states:
We qualify under the assisted places scheme because my husband is severely disabled with manic depression, compounded by other physical disabilities including a skull and brain injury. He spends long periods of time in hospital and our only income is the disability living allowance and carer's allowance and incapacity benefit. Our only asset is our home and a dwindling amount of savings, left over from the days when he was able to work. I suffer from a neck injury which was the result of a car accident some three years ago… It is obviously very hard for me to find employment. Given the destructive nature of manic depression, my main aim is for our household to run as normally as possible and ensure that the children grow up"—

Mr. Maude: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Many of us have been present for the debate all evening and take the matter extremely seriously. The debate is about the right of children to receive the education that has been contracted for. Is it appropriate for the Government Benches to be filled with hon. Members who have been brought in from all parts of the building in various states of refreshment, who clearly have no interest in the debate? It should be placed on the record that they are spending their time giggling, chatting to each other and taking no interest—

The First Deputy Chairman: Who comes into the Chamber is not a matter for the Chair. However, I must appeal again for quietness when an hon. Member is addressing the Committee.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Martin, and I am truly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). I am attempting to bring to the Committee the real case of a constituent of mine who contacted me this morning to tell me of her desperate anxieties about the Bill.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I want to hear about the amendments, not the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is what he is doing."] Order. It is all right for hon. Members to say that that is what the right hon. Gentleman is doing, but I can hear the right hon. Gentleman, and he is talking about the Bill. I want to hear about the amendments.

Mr. Forth: That is absolutely correct, Mr. Martin. The amendments concern the ability of parents to be confident that their children can receive an education through to the age of 13 and beyond where that is appropriate. That is the context in which I believe that a genuine individual case is relevant.
But I confess that I also wanted to take this opportunity to pick up a point made by none other than the Minister himself when earlier he said that parents would rejoice at the Bill. This individual case is very poignant. The next paragraph of the letter relates directly to the amendments. It says:
like most parents we thought that by taking up such a place, our children's education would be honoured as long as they continued to perform to a level which justified this place, ie until they reached 18 years. It has been with an increasing sense of frustration and anxiety that we learn that our second child is to lose this place … The toll that this additional stress is taking on my husband's health is incalculable.
The letter goes on, but I shall not read it all to the Committee.
To meet a point raised earlier, I am more than happy to put the letter on the record so that the Committee can consider it. As has been pointed out, for a party which often claims some monopoly of care and compassion, the Labour party is showing precious little sign of any of that in tonight's proceedings.
I have set the scene for that part of the case that I wanted to make and I shall now make the briefest reference to amendment No. 28. That amendment seeks to ensure, for avoidance of doubt, that
Unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the pupil in question will receive secondary education which is comparable to the primary education which he has received in regard to … its religious content; … the curriculum provided; … opportunities for sport; … size of classes; and … single-sex provision, he"—
the Secretary of State—
shall determine that that pupil shall continue to hold that place during the period which he receives secondary education.
That amendment is crucial in one important respect, to which we shall return in later amendments because we want to develop the argument. It is simply that we must find a mechanism whereby even if the Bill ends the benefits of an assisted place to a young person, the alternative provision in the state sector, about which the tinder-Secretary of State spoke so proudly earlier, will be fully as good, and guaranteed to be fully as good, to every child who may lose his or her provision under the assisted places scheme. That is what we are asking, and what we hope that the amendments will achieve. I am sure that my arguments will be developed by my hon. Friends when they speak. We wish to provide a mechanism that will give the guarantee that parents deserve that the alternative provision will be every bit as good.
I have kept my remarks deliberately brief because I wish to allow my hon. Friends to develop the arguments. I hope, however, that I have given the Committee enough of a flavour of the thrust of our amendments and that the arguments will be developed further.
To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Nick Brown.]

Committee report progress; to sit again this day.

Orsett Hospital, Thurrock

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The subject of my Adjournment debate is Orsett hospital, which is situated in the borough of Thurrock. I speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), who has yet to make her maiden speech. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Adjournment debates are very important to Back-Bench Members, and we must give the hon. Gentleman a hearing.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful for your assistance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate is important to me and to my constituents, who are aggrieved by the way that the Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS trust has behaved over Orsett hospital. As I was saying before the interruption, I speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon. I wish to make it clear that the Basildon constituency that she represents is different from the Basildon constituency in the previous Parliament. Approximately one third of my hon. Friend's constituency is situated in the borough of Thurrock, and Orsett hospital is just within the boundaries of her constituency.
By way of background, I wish to point out that Basildon and Thurrock are two separate urban areas. The equivalent of mountains and rivers separates them and there is no relationship between them that facilitates having one district general hospital for both areas. Going back in history a little, I should point out that Basildon is a new town and had large resources applied to it in decades past. It was deemed that the town should have its own general hospital. Nobody foresaw that policies would change and that the way in which health care was delivered would shift so that one district general hospital would serve the two urban areas of Basildon and Thurrock.
Thurrock has had a district general hospital, and it was known as Orsett hospital. The site of the hospital has been occupied for 100 years by buildings connected with the poor law or used as a hospital. Orsett hospital is situated between the two urban areas and was built some 30 years ago. It is a relatively modern building which functioned as a full district general hospital with an accident and emergency department, and it provided acute care, including intensive care, cardiac beds and maternity services.
Just over 10 years ago, the health authority decided to close the maternity unit and centralise provision at Basildon hospital. Understandably, there was a strong local outcry, but the health authority gave assurances to, primarily, the people of Thurrock—but also the people of Basildon—that better provision would ensue. It also suggested that that was the last change that would be made.
Then, in 1990, the then health authority announced its decision to close the accident and emergency department at Orsett hospital and to centralise all the facilities at Basildon, which is not a central point for the two urban

areas. It said that acute surgery and intensive care, including cardiac care, would also go to Basildon. Again there was a massive outcry, met by assurances—which are not worth the paper that they are written on—from the health authority about the future.
We think that the shift of A and E services to Basildon—along with many other services—is perverse, given Thurrock's riparian, industrial, Lowryesque urban area, which runs some 14 miles along the river. There is a large amount of industry: the Lakeside shopping park—which 25 million people visit each year—and the various petrochemical industries. Thurrock is probably the biggest and fastest-growing residential area in the south-east.
People may ask why anyone should make such a perverse decision of centralising at Basildon, rather than centring services in Orsett. One reason is that the surgeons and consultants who largely influence and run the health service wanted the convenience of being closer to the private hospital—Nuffield hospital, at Brentwood. That has been one of the driving factors in the perverse location and centring of so many important services.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am sure that it was due to an oversight that the hon. Gentleman forgot to mention that my constituency also uses the Orsett and Basildon complex. I share his concern that Orsett hospital should be kept, and kept in good order, for the use of his constituents and those of the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith). Is it not true, however, that the last Government found an extra £18 million that has helped to provide Orsett with a new eye unit that is servicing the whole of Essex, that there is a brand new minor injuries unit and that many of the maternity wings that were once a feature of Orsett hospital have been rehoused in very nice new facilities, including the Thurrock community hospital? Are there not three good new institutes in my constituency, in the Wickford and Billericay area?

Mr. Mackinlay: I am disappointed by the hon. Lady's intervention. She knows that much of what she has said is nonsense. She referred to the minor injuries unit. I do not want to introduce politics into the debate, but the mess that we are in is due to the stewardship of the health service by the Conservative Government sustained by the hon. Lady and the former Member of Parliament for Basildon. The minor injuries unit is an insult: it is little more than a temporary hut. It is a sop and a charade.
The trust that we now have has disregarded the wishes and legitimate interests of the people of Thurrock, primarily, but also those of the people of Basildon. It has no regard for consultation. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot intervene in a management decision, but I hope that, as a consequence of my remarks, he may feel able at least to go back to the regional executive of the national health service and say that he is concerned about the stewardship of hospital facilities by Basildon hospital trust, in connection with both its style of management and the extent to which it consults. Time and again, it has said one thing and done another.
I consider the management incompetent. I bear no malice towards the chief executive, but she is a woman who has been promoted completely out of her depth. I noted that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, served on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Select Committee, which invited that woman to reconsider her position. She is not competent to run the trust.
The whole style of the trust, including the executive and non-executive directors, leaves a lot to be desired. I understand that the chief executive is the spouse of the clinical director. That is not good, sound management, given the line management responsibility. The whole problem should be examined root and branch, because there is no confidence in the conduct of the trust. I cannot overstate that point.
In 1994, during the last stages of the old health authority, the closure of Orsett hospital was considered. We feel that that is now the trust's underlying intention to effect that closure. The King's Fund was invited to consider the proposal to close the trust, which it found to be flawed. The health plans were subsequently altered.
The community health council, Thurrock borough council and I have always been realistic. We have never wanted to fight yesterday's battles. We have never suggested that we can put the clock back and restore everything to Orsett hospital, certainly not in the medium term. However, we thought that we had reached an agreement whereby the health service and hospital facilities would gradually be developed throughout the borough. We thought that the Orsett hospital site would be retained, and that a network of extensive and real minor injuries units would be provided around the borough and in the Basildon area.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) talked nonsense. No doctor is available in the so-called minor injuries unit placed at Orsett hospital, and its structure suggests that the firm intention is that it should be only a temporary provision.
In January 1996, the new trust submitted a planning application to develop five sixths of the Orsett hospital site without consulting the health authority. The community health council was not consulted—as was its statutory right, and neither were the borough council and the local Members of Parliament. That is indicative of the trust's arrogant behaviour. We extracted some recognition of that from the chief executive of the health authority at a planning inquiry just under two weeks ago. He said that a planning application was premature.
Subsequently, a new planning application was submitted: it was a minor variation on the same theme. The health authority has now approved that latter proposal. Well it would, wouldn't it? No one believes that it is anything other than the health authority and the trust closing ranks. It shows the arrogant approach that is being taken, and it is to the disadvantage of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon.
I want to stress the fact that the community health council has not been consulted. The trust recently argued that it had consulted on the health plan for Thurrock, as it was a change in service provision. However, neither the trust nor the health authority have denied the fact that there was no consultation on the proposal for the disposal of the land asset. That is fundamental. No consultation has taken place on the proposal to declare the land at Orsett redundant or surplus to health service requirements. The community health council and others are entitled to be consulted on that.
The decision is perverse because Basildon hospital has a problem of capacity. It cannot absorb and meet the legitimate needs of the people of Basildon and Thurrock.

The planning application is being bounced through the trust's decision-making process and that of the health authority. If it is allowed to proceed, the option for wiser counsels to prevail in future years and for major hospital services to be returned to the Orsett site will be closed down. Those services will demonstrably be needed if Thurrock grows. The existing health plan for Thurrock has limited time horizons because its figures extend only to 2001. As I have said, it is one of the fastest-growing areas in the south-east of England.
I implore the Minister to consider this wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs. I know that hon. Members feel aggrieved that, all over the country, accident and emergency departments are being closed and specialist services are being centred in one area. I understand the argument about creating areas of excellence, but this is different, because we are not debating one urban area. The services are not located between the two urban areas, so there is no logicality. The people in many parts of Thurrock that are furthest from Basildon hospital are among the poorest, most disadvantaged and least mobile anywhere. Basildon hospital is far from them.
The people of Basildon and Thurrock have found that the management, competence and delivery of services leave a lot to be desired. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, served on a Select Committee which showed the incompetence of the current management. I understand that the chief executive's total remuneration package in 1995 was £88,000 a year. The highest-paid director has a total remuneration package of £95,000 a year. I mention that in passing.
It is grossly irritating to the people of Thurrock to know that those people are being paid such large sums when the experience of everyone in Basildon and Thurrock is that the hospital provision is not being delivered competently. The people who run the trust have been grossly selfish and the non-executive directors are insensitive and largely unknown to the communities over whose interests they are supposed to have stewardship.
I hope that the Minister will say that, although he may want to examine what I have said, he will nevertheless tell the regional executive of the national health service that there must be greater scrutiny of the actions and decisions of the trust in future. In addition, the health authority needs to show more backbone in standing up to the trust and in protecting its rights and those of the people it is trying to serve.
The community health council is entitled in law to be consulted, and I hope that, as a result of this debate, there will be a moratorium on the progressing of the planning application for land which is demonstrably not redundant or surplus to requirements. That would give great heart to people in Thurrock and Basildon.

Mr. Alan Hurst: I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). My interest in this matter is that, while I represent a north Essex constituency, on the county council I represent the division of Orsett and Stifford.
I entirely support my hon. Friend's conclusions about the hospital and its site. He will recall that, when the health authority attempted to consult local people, it could not at first find a hall big enough to accommodate all those who wished to attend. When it eventually used


almost the largest public hall in Thurrock, hundreds of people had to stand outside on a bitterly cold night. Despite that, the health authority proceeds apace with plans that clearly are not in accord with the wishes of the people of Thurrock.
As I say, I endorse my hon. Friend's views about the hospital, and I hope that, even at this late hour—both in terms of the people we represent and in our terms—the whole issue of the proper use of the site will be reviewed.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on securing the debate and on arguing his constituents' case so forcefully. I thank the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) for their remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock knows that, in a previous guise, I visited Orsett hospital to accompany my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Ms Smith) when she was the prospective parliamentary candidate. I am delighted to see her in her place. I am familiar with some of the background to some of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock raises.
I can understand the concern of local people about the closure of Orsett's accident and emergency department in 1991. I also appreciate the concern about plans to move services away from Orsett and to dispose of some of the site. In the circumstances, I can appreciate why my hon. Friends would like the whole Orsett site to be retained in the national health service so that, at some future time, the hospital might be expanded and an accident and emergency department for Thurrock residents reintroduced. I shall return to that issue.
The current position, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock is aware, is that Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS trust, which owns the Orsett site, is seeking planning permission for housing on part of the site that it will not require. Progress on the development of alternative services at Basildon hospital and disposal of property at Orsett depend on the outcome of the planning inquiry, which took evidence last month.
Whatever we may think of the decision to move hospital services away from Orsett, it must be right to dispose of property that no longer has a health service purpose in the most appropriate way possible. Proceeds from the disposal of surplus assets are ploughed back into patient care. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would like more resources to go into front-line patient services since we know that they are desperately needed.
The reconfiguration of hospital services is part of the local health strategy—the health plan for Thurrock, developed by South Essex health authority. I need therefore to talk briefly about the plan. My comments should not be taken as providing any sort of ministerial endorsement or otherwise either of the plan itself or of the process by which it was developed but rather just to aid our understanding of the local situation.
First, I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock about population growth in the Thurrock area. He is quite right to highlight that issue. Industry and commerce are being attracted successfully

into the Thurrock area, and the population is increasing at a faster rate than in the south Essex area as a whole. The forecast growth in Thurrock's population is clearly rapid, and it is important that local health services are developed accordingly.
The health authority takes the view that the population increase does not justify an additional general hospital in the foreseeable future and that to allow for one would not be a good use of health service resources. Of course, the health authority accepts the need for improved services, and that is reflected in the health plan, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock knows, has two main elements: investment of more resources in community and primary health care services and the development of high-technology, general hospital in-patient health services at Basildon hospital to provide a single centre of excellence serving the population of Basildon and Thurrock.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock has expressed his concern about the accessibility of Basildon hospitals to Thurrock residents in correspondence with me. It is a very important issue and I hope that the health plan recognises the need for improvement on it. I understand, for example, that car parking at Basildon hospital is planned to be almost doubled in the near future. The health authority is discussing public transport and the possibility of enhancing the hospital and voluntary transport scheme with Essex county council and Thurrock borough council.
Orsett hospital will continue to provide out-patient, day and diagnostic services. Indeed, there will be no change for an estimated 90 per cent. of the patients who currently use Orsett. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock that not all the surplus land will be disposed of. Some will be retained in case there is a need for some expansion of services on the site in future.
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about consultation, and I have listened to the points that have been made to me directly by the community health council, which clearly feels that the consultation process has been far from adequate.
The health authority has provided me with a briefing that gives its perspective on the consultation that has been undertaken on the health plan for Thurrock. As consultation on substantial service change is subject to statute, it would be inappropriate for me to express an opinion on whether consultation has been undertaken properly in this case.
It is my understanding that the CHC was consulted on the plan during the formal consultation period, which began in early 1995, and that it received meeting agendas and reports on the plan, including the paper that set out in detail the decision to declare areas of Orsett hospital surplus.
A chief concern of the CHC is that land should not be sold without alternative provision being in place. I have received a letter from the local CHC arguing that case. I understand that the health authority has consistently given the undertaking that it would not discontinue or transfer any service from Orsett until appropriate alternatives were provided, either within the community or at Basildon hospital.
Once the planning situation is clear—it is likely to be some time before the outcome of the current planning inquiry is known—the trust will be in a position to refine


its plan for restructuring hospital services. The trust has been given outline business case approval for its restructuring plans under the private finance initiative on the basis of the outline proposals. It will need to obtain final business case approval from the NHS executive before going ahead with the procurement and associated disposals.
My hon. Friend has my assurance that the capital development will not be approved until we are satisfied that there are clear benefits for patients, and that the process of disposal and procurement can be handled in such a way that services are not closed before alternative services are made available. In view of my hon. Friend's concerns, which I know are shared by other Labour Members, I shall instruct the NHS executive specifically on this point. I hope that that goes part of the way towards satisfying the concerns of my hon. Friend and his constituents.
My hon. Friend made some remarks about the role of individuals. It would not be appropriate to comment on such roles, although it is incumbent on all servants of the NHS, whether in an executive or non-executive capacity, to ensure that the planning and delivery of local services properly reflects local views. My hon Friends may be assured that one of our priorities is to ensure that the boards of all NHS organisations are properly representative of the communities they serve.
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friends said about the condition of local health services. This and other such debates will inform the changes that we will need to make to restore the NHS to a proper condition with the services that local people should expect to receive. Those changes will be properly thought through and tested, and will be introduced sensitively, but changes there will be to ensure that local hospitals are able to provide a proper health care service in tune with our founding principles for the NHS.
It is particularly important, in my view, that we restore local accountability and local confidence. The way in which services are run and the way in which they develop must be properly in tune with local needs and local views.

One of our priorities is to ensure that those who lead local services are properly representative of the communities they serve.
In the meantime, I will want to see those responsible for health services in Basildon and Thurrock, like everywhere else in the country, making every effort, under the present arrangements, to ensure that local views are taken into account fully in the planning and delivery of local services.

Mrs. Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate for the Minister completely to ignore the fact that Basildon, Thurrock and Billericay are concerned in the hospital development? Billericay is my constituency, and it is not been mentioned once in the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not an appropriate point of order in this debate.

Mr. Milburn: I have already paid due regard to the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). Moreover, as this Adjournment debate has been secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, and because time is short, I am attempting to deal with his specific concerns. I should be grateful if, for a moment, the hon. Lady would contain herself.
I assure hon. Members that, so far as possible, the development and reconfiguration of local health services in the Basildon and Thurrock areas will go with the grain of local opinion. It is extremely important that we achieve that objective, and I expect everyone concerned to make every effort to ensure that we do so. Labour Members are right to insist that no facilities at Orsett should be closed until alternative services are available and that local undertakings on the matter must be honoured. As I said, I shall instruct the NHS executive to ensure that those guidelines are followed.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock feels that such action shows progress and helps to meet some of the concerns that he has articulated so clearly in this debate on behalf of his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Two o'clock.